Consolidated Fund Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Viscount Astor: My Lords, at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave a commitment to reply in writing to questions that he was either unable or did not have time to answer at the end of the debate. I raised a number of questions and have received no letter from the noble Baroness's department; nor, so far as I am aware, have a number of my colleagues on this side of the House.
	If a Minister makes a commitment at Second Reading to answer in writing questions with which he was unable to deal, the department and the Minister should make some effort to reply to us, or indeed to explain why we were unable to receive replies. Serious points were made during the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment to consider them and that, between now and Committee stage next week, she will reply to any issues to be dealt with then.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I can do that. I received a number of letters yesterday to sign, but I thought that some of them needed changes. Because of the preparation that was necessary for this morning's proceedings, I did not feel able to ask officials to spend a lot of time changing them. I will, however, endeavour to obtain replies to the specific questions raised, some of which were not answered by my noble friend Lord McIntosh—although he did a splendid job, standing in for me at the last minute, in answering many of them. I will look specifically at the questions raised by the noble Viscount and at any others relating to points that will not be covered in ministerial responses today.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Licensable activities and qualifying club activities]:

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
	"(e) the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises where other licensable activities are carried on."

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 and 90, which are grouped with it.
	The first amendment adds a further licensable activity to the list contained in Clause 1. The proposed new paragraph (e) relates to the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises where other licensable activities as already described in paragraphs (a) to (d) are carried on.
	There are four main reasons why the amendment is desirable and necessary. The first is to continue what has been a previous practice and to give to the new licensing authorities the responsibility which currently lies with magistrates. It is thus in accord with the main thrust of the Government's Bill.
	Magistrates have historically imposed conditions on smoking in public places in licensed premises, especially in banning smoking in areas open to children. The amendment would continue that practice but would make it the responsibility of the new licensing authorities.
	Secondly, it is in line with the Government's general policy of making decisions locally. My noble friends increasingly emphasise the importance of local communities in policy-making and delivery. This follows that approach. Local authorities are best placed to make, and are properly accountable for, decisions made about smoking status in pubs and restaurants. Experience overseas indicates that most progress is made in this area when relatively small jurisdictions are given the responsibility. It would be much more difficult to impose a "one size fits all" approach from Whitehall for the whole nation.
	By giving powers to local authorities to impose conditions, we are more likely to get appropriate solutions for the local community and solutions sensitive to the commercial needs and practical constraints of particular premises.
	Thirdly, the amendment is intended to contribute towards linking the objectives of the Bill with health. The BMA's recent report on passive smoking, Towards Smoke-free Public Places, establishes beyond doubt that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and asthma attacks in adults; and cot death, middle ear disease, respiratory infections and the development of asthma in children.
	The most recent statement of the Government's policy on passive smoking is contained in an admirable Written Answer given two days ago by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It contains these words:
	"we accept the right of everyone to breathe air unpolluted by cigarette smoke and we encourage the introduction of smoke-free environments. We recognise that this is not always going to be possible and encourage in these circumstances other measures to be taken to reduce people's exposure to smoke".—[Official Report, 10/12/02; col. WA 21.]
	I hope that my noble friend will accept that my amendment is a helpful "other measure" which goes some way towards meeting the Government's aims.
	The fact that "public safety" and "the protection of children from harm" are specified as licensing objectives—in Clause 4(2)—makes smoking status relevant in licensed premises. Including the provision of smoking areas as a licensable activity in such premises will mean that the licensee and licensing authority must make active decisions about smoking status.
	Fourthly, it is consistent with other approaches to smoking. At present, there are no meaningful regulatory requirements on landlords or restaurant managers to improve air quality in pubs or restaurants.
	The hospitality industry seeks to introduce a voluntary agreement known as the "public places charter". But, as that permits its members not to participate, progress has been slow and patchy. I am advised that only 50 per cent of premises are expected to be covered by January 2003. It also allows a "do-nothing" option whereby all that happens is that a sign is placed at the entrance to indicate that smoking is permitted throughout. Even if the hospitality industry meets its own very modest, informal targets, this approach will be chosen by two-thirds of the premises that comply.
	So, in other words, only 17.5 per cent in total will have done more than nothing. The rest will opt to do nothing or will not join the charter. Local authority licensing would stimulate uptake of the options under the charter for smoke-free areas, improved ventilation or both. The charter signage would be used to indicate what smoking status is available in premises.
	If—dare I say, when—the Government introduce the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on Passive Smoking at Work drawn up by the Health and Safety Executive four years ago, it would give specific effect, in the case of passive smoking, to general duties to protect employee health and welfare as required under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
	When the ACoP comes in, it would be better to have a local authority responsible for determining what is deemed a "reasonably practicable" approach to smoking in each local establishment. Even if the Government continue to stall on the ACoP, there are still duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Local authorities should uphold them with clear guidance from environmental health officers rather than leave the employers' obligations vague, as they are now.
	I do not intend to make provision of smoking spaces anywhere a licensable activity, but only in places licensed for other licensable activities, such as retailing of alcohol or entertainment. The reason for making the provision of smoking areas a licensable activity is to recognise non-smoking as the norm and then require smoking status to be granted under licence. That principle is already accepted by the hospitality industry. Its public places charter states:
	"The signatories to this Charter recognise that non-smoking is the general norm and that there should be increasing provision of facilities for non-smokers and the availability of clean air".
	My final word about Amendment No. 1 is that I am not trying to use the Licensing Bill as a means to sneak in a back-door ban on smoking in pubs. My aim is to give local authorities powers and responsibilities to tackle this issue in a way that suits the local community. That could include doing nothing except complying with existing law, or it could mean taking a progressive approach to health and to health inequalities. But it will be up to a local authority to decide what is best for its own area.
	My second amendment, Amendment No. 78, which is grouped to Amendment No. 1, is to include a further licensing objective under the general duties of licensing authorities in Clause 4. The new Clause 4(2)(e) would specify as a licensing objective,
	"the protection of health, safety and welfare of workers in licensed premises".
	These objectives already focus on public safety and protection of children from harm, and rightly so. But the rights of workers in licensed premises should be considered. That would apply in such matters as violence, noise and smoke exposure. Although there is overlap with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and related regulations, it would enable the licensing authority to apply conditions that are specific to the kinds of hazard present in licensed premises. We know that the HSE finds it difficult to give one-size-fits-all guidance on obligations under that Act. This amendment would allow the local authority to impose licensing conditions that would protect workers in licensed premises.
	My third amendment, Amendment No. 90, is consistent with the other two, and is also wholly in line with the Government's policy on protecting children from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. The Government's Smoking Kills White Paper stated:
	"Children, more vulnerable than adults and often with little choice over their exposure to tobacco smoke, are at particular risk".
	We know that other people's smoke makes children ill. It is hard to find a much clearer definition of harm from which children need to be protected than that. As adults, we can choose whether to enter a smoky environment. But children, who under the terms of the Bill will be free to enter licensed premises, do not have that choice if their parents take them in.
	Amendment No. 90 makes clear that licensing authorities should do their best to ensure that children are excluded from areas of licensed premises where smoking is permitted. Already, some of the more enlightened pub operators operate such a policy voluntarily. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: Before responding to the amendments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I say to the Minister that, with regret, we had a difficult task last night and this morning dealing with the draft groupings presented to us mid-afternoon. To give one example, the amendments were grouped with the debate on whether the whole licensing system should be moved from magistrates' courts to local authorities. That was entirely inappropriate and ill thought through. Although the Minister may be under pressure to respond to questions raised at Second Reading two and a half weeks ago, we on Her Majesty's Opposition Benches and other noble Lords are also under enormous pressure. We urge the Minister to encourage her officials to think through carefully the drafting of the groupings.
	Turning to the Bill, the Opposition do not support the amendments. We feel that they would be an inappropriate addition to the scope of the Bill. The Bill is intended to provide for unified regulation of the sale and supply of alcohol, the provision of regulated entertainment and the provision of late-night refreshment, referred to collectively in the Bill as the licensable activities.
	The Bill is intended to ensure that the provision of additional opportunities for licensable activities is matched by additional measures enabling the police and licensing authorities to act promptly to maintain public order and safety. The Bill is therefore not about the sale or supply of tobacco products or about smoking in the workplace or in public places and it is not appropriate that it should be.
	It is entirely inappropriate and wrong that the four licensable activities currently stated in the Bill should be added to by a fifth, as the amendment proposes, to include,
	"the provision of indoor spaces in which smoking is permitted in premises where other licensable activities are carried on".
	That means that smoking—not generally, but in otherwise licensable premises—would require approval by licence and licence conditions. I disagree entirely with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. We believe that the proposal would lead to a possible back-door ban on smoking in pubs. If the noble Lord wishes to make it necessary for licences granted under the Bill to make specific requirements as to the conditions under which smoking may be permitted, Clause 1 is not the appropriate place.
	The amendments, individually and collectively, would unnecessarily add to the regulatory burden. The key purpose of the Bill is to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulation. The amendments take no regard of the obligations under existing legislation and regulation and of the widespread and growing effectiveness of self-regulation.
	It is not appropriate that this or any other legislation should seek to achieve statutory regulation when it is so obvious that voluntary self-regulation of smoking is already a satisfactory and increasingly effective alternative in the workplace or in public places.
	Employers have a common law responsibility to provide a safe place and system of work. Under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers have to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees. Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, employers have to ensure that there are arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms or rest areas. If there is a risk to health, the employer must take action to deal with it. Health and safety inspectors can take enforcement action if necessary. Ultimately, it would be for the courts to decide in a particular case whether a risk to health was significant.
	These facts make the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 4 redundant. In any event, well over 80 per cent of workplaces now have policies in operation that have the acceptance and agreement of employees and all other parties. Smoking in public places is also likewise now regulated largely on a voluntary, self-regulatory basis without the need for legislation. This is true on most forms of public transport and in taxis, hotels, restaurants, shops, shopping malls and many places of public entertainment.
	A significant public demand exists for improved air quality generally in the hospitality sector, represented for the most part by pubs and bars. There is widespread and growing adoption by owners and operators of the public places charter on smoking. We disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who says that progress is slow. On the contrary, we understand that substantial improvements are being achieved in the provision of cleaner air in the hospitality sector through ventilation, filtration and separate smoking and non-smoking areas. The charter is based on education and training and has the support of all the relevant trade associations and leading commercial operators. It is a progressive scheme that encourages operators to agree and implement a smoking policy with appropriate signage, and to invest in improvements over a number of years.
	It is worth noting the Government's stated position. As recently as 3rd December, the Secretary of State for Health said that,
	"we have been trying to persuade employers, through our local tobacco control alliances, to take action locally. We want to encourage more of them, especially in the restaurant and pub business, either to make their environment smoke free or to at least make it clear to consumers and workers where smoking is allowed. Many employers want to take such action. I agree that there is a lot more to do, but we are beginning to make real inroads into a real problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; col. 741-42.]
	In conclusion, in enclosed spaces, environmental tobacco smoke is far from being the only or most significant element in the context of air quality. Nor is the significance of the health implications clear or undisputed. There are many air pollutants—gaseous, chemical and biological—that are most satisfactorily dealt with by improved ventilation and filtration techniques. Regulation that relates only to environmental tobacco smoke would have an unmeasurable effect on overall air quality. Surely the key to improved indoor air quality is proper ventilation and filtration.

Lord Redesdale: As a non-smoker, I can well understand the noble Lord's motivation in tabling the amendment. There are obviously health implications of smoking in pubs. However, we do not support the amendment. I shall not give the detailed reasoning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has already done so, but we believe that such regulation should be part of the role of the Health and Safety Executive rather than part of this Bill.

Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have responded to the amendment in moderate terms. I have been known to lose my temper on this subject inside and outside the Chamber. I do not intend to do so today.
	My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are absolutely right. Knowing the background of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, described in Dod's as a liaison Peer to the Cabinet Office, I was amazed that he tabled these amendments to the Bill. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said—or almost said—the Bill was originally sold to us as a flagship deregulation Bill. It contains a lot of balancing of retained regulation on one side and easing on the other. It retains the need to maintain public order and safety. The amendments would be an unnecessary addition to the regulatory burden. I agree with everything that my noble friend said about smoking in the workplace.
	The charter was agreed between the Department of Health and originally five—now 14—hospitality trade associations. It is very new, having come into effect only in 1999. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned 2003, which is when the first targets should have been achieved. The targets are that half the pubs and some restaurants must be signed by early 2003, in fewer than 65 per cent of which smoking would be allowed throughout. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, doubted whether that would be achieved. However, according to the public market report of 2002, 39 per cent of pubs have already achieved that aim. Therefore, it is a growing occurrence.
	Although the targets will not be exceeded, I have no doubt that over the next three or four years we shall find that around 80 per cent of pubs and restaurants will, at the very least, have smoke-free areas. At best, we shall find a significant number being totally smoke free. I accept that there is a public demand for improved air quality generally. As the noble Lord said, the charter is a voluntary agreement; but, as my noble friend said, it has the approval of the Secretary of State for Health. I believe that it will actually achieve its objectives.
	I do not believe that anyone on this side of the Committee has spoken about Amendment No. 90. It is a very worrying trend when the state seems to know better than parents what is good for their children. I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is good for children to be with their parents, whether in pubs, restaurants, or anywhere else. Indeed, as I understand it, this is part of the thinking behind the Bill. Surely it should be for parents to decide where the family sits in a public restaurant; it should not be a matter of law. It follows, therefore, that it should not be a licensing condition.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I do not want my noble friend to feel that he is the only person in the Committee with such views, so I rise to support him. My noble friend outlined the reasoning behind these amendments. Therefore, I do not propose to reiterate the points that he made. I shall merely say that I wholeheartedly support the amendments, especially Amendment No. 78, which gives protection relating to the health, safety, and welfare of those working in licensed premises. At present, workers in this industry do not have a choice as to whether or not they work in smoke-free areas. I accept that there are provisions in other Acts that currently cover such workers, but, unfortunately, they are outstandingly inadequate. The proposed provisions would further protect workers in licensed premises.
	I do not believe that these proposals represent a backdoor method of banning smoking in pubs—I only wish that they did. I used to enjoy a drink in a pub. But, as I have become older and seem to be more and more affected by cigarette smoke, I can no longer do so. We shall have to wait for another day for such a ban. Indeed, we have been waiting for the ACoP for four years. I worked on the ACoP when I served as a health and safety commissioner. I do not know why we are still waiting. I have my suspicions, but I shall not verse them today. I support the amendments.

Lord Geddes: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on two counts: first, I congratulate him on the impeccable and lucid way in which he read his brief, which was masterly. Secondly, I congratulate him on managing to keep a straight face when he said that his proposal was not to try to bring in legislation by the back door. It is. This is a licensing Bill; it has nothing whatever to do with smoking.
	As the late Lord Benson once said, "Everything that I wish to say has been said". But just to reinforce my argument, I should point out to the noble Lord that if he wishes to bring in legislation of this type, Clause 1 is not the place to do so; neither is this the right Bill for such provisions.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before I speak to the amendments, perhaps I may declare an interest for the purpose of this Committee stage; namely, that I am a non-executive director of a large regional brewer, which operates 1,500 pubs countrywide, including the famous Pitcher & Piano in Westminster—the subject of a good deal of publicity of which noble Lords may be aware. I quite understand the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has put forward. If he were to use the words, "discourage people from smoking", I could understand his argument, especially where passive smoking is involved. But I share the view that this is not the way to achieve the discouragement that the noble Lord outlined as his objective.
	However, I can offer the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, some comfort. Within the estate that we operate there is clearly a continuing and rising tide of public opinion in favour of smoke-free areas and the view that the number should be increased. Therefore, market forces and public opinion are on the noble Lord's side. That must be the way to achieve the objective, because we would arrive at the desired point with complete consent. Everyone would buy into the solution that had been found, which is better than trying to impose an anti-smoking provision in licensing legislation and, at the same time, increasing the regulatory burden on both the operator of the pub and licence holder of the premises.
	Where attempts have been made to widen the smoke-free areas too far and too fast because of a vocal minority, there has been a backlash from smokers who believe that they, too, have rights. This proposal would put the personal licence holder, the premises licence holder, or the brewer, into the frontline of a battle of public opinion, which would not be fair on any of them. It is up to the legislature to set the framework; it should not be passed down the line and left to people on the frontline to arbitrate and address.

Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the groupings of amendments. This is always an issue, and the Opposition have the right to degroup when they believe it to be necessary. However, my officials put forward these groups in good faith, in the belief that that was the best way to organise the debate. I do not believe that the extent of the degrouping carried out by the noble Baroness will help the debate, though I completely sympathise with some degrouping. We have a great many single groups that seem to deal with more or less the same issue. However, I am perfectly happy to accept the degroupings that have been made by the Opposition; that is their right. We, too, have had to reorganise our way of approaching the Bill in order to take such degroupings into account.

Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister, but surely it is the job of officials to help all of us in terms of the way that these groupings are presented. To group this debate with the whole transfer of the licensing system from magistrates to local authorities indicates, perhaps, the depth of misunderstanding of the Bill, which is most disturbing. It simply does not make sense when we are dealing with a Bill that has been coming towards the statute book for two-and-a-half years.
	We have degrouped considerably because we believe that the Bill is worthy of full debate. The way that the original groupings were drafted was, to be honest, frankly dismissive of so many of the important issues that have been raised by both individuals and organisations. We have been lobbied extensively on this legislation. We believe that it is right for it to be properly scrutinised.

Baroness Blackstone: I am most puzzled by what the noble Baroness says about the group that we are debating at this stage. In its original form, this group was smaller rather than larger in size. It certainly did not have anything in it about transport. There is some misunderstanding in this respect. I saw the groupings that were put forward yesterday, and this first group of amendments was smaller. It did not refer to Amendment No. 90, which has since been perfectly legitimately added.
	I must defend my officials. The groupings originally put forward were designed to enable a sensible debate to take place, without the need to repeat the same argument endlessly. That was the intention. The Opposition have a right to disagree, and they have done so. However, it is not fair to my officials to suggest that they approached the matter on any other basis than in good faith to promote the best possible debate. I am sure that Members on all sides of the Committee who have served as Ministers will accept that that is the case. I hope we can proceed on that basis, with that shared common understanding.
	I turn to the amendments. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, Amendments Nos. 1, 78 and 90 seek to address concerns about smoking on licensed premises and the protection of those who work on such premises. Smoking is an issue that should be taken seriously. I take it very seriously, as I know do many other noble Lords. On a number of fronts, the Government are considering whether sufficient controls are in place to protect customers and employees in venues where people smoke. However, this Bill is not about smoking. I entirely agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, when she set out very clearly that this Bill is not about smoking. On that she was also supported by her colleagues on the Conservative Benches and by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale .
	I share some of the views of my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Gibson and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I am not a smoker and I do not like going into pubs full of smoke. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that public opinion has been shifting quite dramatically and that the market itself will lead ever more pubs to want to restrict smoking. I think that he will have more customers in the pub chain where he is a non- executive director if that organisation moves in that direction. I am sorry that I do not know the story about the pub in Westminster, but perhaps on another occasion he can tell me and other noble Lords who are a little curious about what went on there.
	As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, one way in which we are already addressing public smoking in pubs and bars is through the public places charter to which various speakers have referred. The charter is a Department of Health initiative focusing on the link between smoking, drinking and eating. It does not ban outright the right to smoke in various premises, but it has provided a number of helpful practical solutions to smoking issues in what are known as "hospitality venues" in England and Wales, making it possible for customers to know whether the premises have smoke-free areas and the quality of the ventilation provided.
	I have not seen the statistics quoted by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. However, I am inclined to agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that much progress is being made, and rather more than he suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also mentioned that and quite rightly pointed out that, as the targets do not have to be reached until next year, there is still quite a lot more time for people to put in place better provision for those who prefer to be in a non-smoking environment. I think that he quoted a figure of 80 per cent of pubs responding. I cannot comment on that as I do not yet know the figures, and I am not sure that we yet have figures on which we can rely.
	I tell my noble friend Lord Faulkner that the Good Practice Guide issued by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society advises the licensing justices not to set conditions that generally relate to health. I think that we should be absolutely clear about that. The Good Practice Guide states that these matters are properly for local authorities under their responsibilities for environmental health and are not properly dealt with in a licensing context. I think that we should all expect local authorities to take seriously their duties under other legislation such as environmental health law about health and safety matters, and I believe that they do.
	The Bill's four licensing objectives were developed after extensive and detailed consultation with stakeholders. From the first consultation, and including the Government's White Paper, it was made clear that the purposes of the licensing regime needed to be absolutely clear and focused. The result of consultation was to choose for that clear focus the prevention of disturbance and disorder, as well as ensuring public safety wherever possible in places where people gather together for leisure purposes, whether as staff or patrons, and of course including children.
	Amendment No. 90 would require licensing authorities to have regard to the need to exclude children from areas of licensed premises where smoking is permitted. For exactly the same reason as we do not believe that the regulation of smoking on premises where other licensable activities take place should be included in the Bill, I am not able to accept this amendment. However, I am ready to consider what more might be done to bolster the charter we have discussed, to discuss this with my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department of Health, and, in particular, to encourage its adoption by the licensed trade. I am sure that there will be general agreement across the Committee on that.
	The issue of regulating smoking on premises is, however, beyond the scope of this Bill. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken. I particularly appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lady Gibson and the reply just now from my noble friend the Minister. This is an issue that will not go away. It is clear from the tone of all the contributions that the climate on smoking in public places, in licensed premises and indeed elsewhere, is changing steadily; on that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is absolutely correct. I would expect that the climate will have changed sufficiently for the great majority of businesses to realise that it is good commercial practice to provide properly for those who dislike the smell and taste of other people's tobacco smoke.
	The purpose of moving and speaking to these amendments was to give a helping hand to my friends at the Department of Health who are desperately attempting to secure a proper tobacco control policy in this country. I pay tribute to what they are doing. The Answers that they are giving to parliamentary Questions and other Statements in this place and in the other place show that they are absolutely on the right lines. These amendments were a contribution, I thought, to joined-up government.
	I should like to pick up one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I am pleased that he did not lose his temper this morning; he is an agreeable and equable character most of the time. I do, however, have to make the point about children and adults. Of course I am not suggesting that children should be separated from adults when they go into licensed premises. What I am saying is that, because of the damage which we know that passive smoke does to children, adults should be persuaded not to smoke in front of their children. Clearly that cannot be enforced at home, but it does not appear to be an unreasonable aspiration in public places and in licensed premises.
	Nevertheless, I shall, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone suggests, not press the amendment to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Provision of regulated entertainment]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 108, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 7, 18, 19 and 20. This group brings us immediately to Schedule 1 and the issue of what constitutes the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Bill.
	These are very straightforward amendments to achieve what we believe is a simple purpose: to remove the question of "facilities" from the Bill. We believe that the proposed legislation is quite rightly directed towards licensable activities. The step beyond that whereby an attempt is made to license the mere provision of "facilities" ceases to focus on the potential problems related to activities. We believe that the reference to facilities creates a whole tier of unnecessary and onerous regulation. We believe that there is no need to define "entertainment facilities" in this schedule. A simple provision to allow music, dancing and similar forms of entertainment to take place within the regulatory framework, subject to conditions deemed necessary and appropriate, is all that is required. The permission for the public to participate should be included under sub-paragraph (2) as proposed.
	If the Government were to accept these amendments, they would remove one of the core problems of this part of the Bill by eliminating references to facilities and concentrating instead on the activity; that is, the description of the entertainment. Our amendments seek to exclude references to facilities in sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the first paragraph of Schedule 1 and add two obvious descriptions of entertainment; that is, dancing and making music.
	We believe that the measures relating to the provision of entertainment facilities are very vague. Will the Minister confirm whether entertainment facilities could include, for example, music shops, music studios, music and dance teachers? Does the Minister really intend to catch those facilities?
	My next point relates to many of the amendments that we have tabled. I refer the Minister to a letter written by the Secretary of State dated 13th November 2002 which states with regard to music that the introduction of new arrangements will promote live music and encourage performers. We fear that that kind of unclear and vague reference to facilities will achieve precisely the opposite of what is intended. Many organisations and individuals have written to us asking what the provision means and whether they will be caught by it. We should be grateful if the Minister would confirm the meaning and intention of the provision. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments we are discussing to which I have added my name. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The Bill's purpose as set out in the White Paper is deregulation. However, the provision we are discussing appears to add a whole raft of areas which we believed were outside the ambit of the Bill and should remain there. The owner of Hobgoblins Folk Music Shops wrote to me suggesting that the provision could jeopardise the survival of his shops. The licence itself may not be too onerous a burden to bear if the fees are to remain within the guidelines set in the White Paper—although they may, of course, vary—but in the past the ongoing costs of meeting health and safety requirements under the public entertainment licence scheme have been onerous. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. We shall almost certainly return to this matter at a later stage.

Lord Skelmersdale: I have a rather more fundamental point to make. Will the Minister explain to an ignorant mind such as I possess how you can have entertainment without providing facilities? Therefore, why is sub-paragraph (3) needed at all?

Lord Carlile of Berriew: Will the Minister clarify a point that perplexes many noble Lords such as myself who are involved with small charities, often in rural areas? If I make my house and garden available to a local charity, a harpist plays to welcome people as they enter, wine is provided and perhaps a juggler turns up to entertain the children, will I and the charity now be faced with an expensive bureaucratic burden or can I carry on holding such events at my premises? Many people are asking such questions as the explanations provided for the Bill are poor as regards small charities and, indeed, some other larger organisations that we shall discuss later today.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have started on Schedule 1. It is appropriate that I should comment in general terms on the way in which we approach these matters. We did, indeed, group together many amendments to Schedule 1 regardless of which noble Lord tabled them as we considered that that was exactly what would happen in practice. What I shall say now applies not only to the amendments in the group we are discussing but to many amendments in subsequent groups.
	The first point to be made about Schedule 1 is that the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is strictly set out in the early paragraphs of the schedule. Sub-paragraph (2) of the first paragraph of Schedule 1 refers to,
	"entertainment or entertainment facilities . . . provided . . . for members of the public or a section of the public . . . for members of a club . . . and their guests, or in any case . . . for consideration and with a view to profit".
	I believe that we shall discuss that matter further when we discuss a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I refer to the matter now to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
	The point here is that the facilities and the entertainment are provided as the main object of the exercise, so to speak. In other words, the horrible and ubiquitous muzak is not covered by the provision. There is no licensing requirement for it whether it be played in a pub, a shopping mall or, indeed, in the public street, where it is even worse.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I must take advantage of the noble Lord's kind offer to allow me to intervene. Where does the schedule say that the main purpose of the provision of the entertainment is the music? Nothing in the schedule removes the impression that has been gained that an event will be caught by the schedule if music is provided, which is incidental to the event but furnishes some entertainment for people attending that event.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall continue with the argument as I want to refer specifically to music as, clearly, it is of particular concern. A whole series of amendments relate to music and to the differences between live music, recorded music, amplified and unamplified music and so on.
	The provisions of Schedule 1 do not attempt to discriminate in any way between one kind of music and another, or indeed, to discriminate between one kind of entertainment and another except in the sense that we are concerned with its effect. The effect is twofold: first, there is a health and safety issue as regards the protection of the audience—I refer only to entertainments carried out in the presence of an audience or members of a club or their guests—and, secondly, there is an effect on the area surrounding the premises. I refer in that connection to noise and disturbance. That is the basis on which the whole of Schedule 1 is constructed.

Lord Redesdale: The Minister refers to entertainment being provided in the presence of an audience. But if someone was paid to prepare music for a wedding, would he not be caught by Schedule 1? That person would be presenting music to an audience for profit. Could that also not apply—perhaps I prejudge what the Minister will say—to music shops whose main purpose is to make a profit out of the provision of music?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, that is not the case. A wedding party, for example, does not constitute an event conducted in the presence of members of the public. It involves invited guests. A music shop does involve members of the public but the main purpose of the music shop is to sell music, not to invite people in to listen to music. Those people are not charged for coming into the shop to listen to music. There is no question of music shops, wedding parties or anything else of that sort being covered by the Bill. That is simply not provided for.
	The second question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was about facilities. Why do we need to cover not only entertainment, as defined in paragraph 1(1), but also facilities, as in paragraph 1(3)? Entertainment facilities are needed in the Bill to ensure that, when a nightclub provides a dance floor rather than staging performances, it is still required to have a licence. The effect of dancing in a nightclub, and the music that is necessary for dancing, constitutes a health and safety issue for those taking part and the audience and an issue of protection for those living nearby. That is why it must be included in the provisions.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting at this point. I have a particular question that he may be able to answer now. If a dance floor is already in a venue but is not used for that purpose, does the physical presence of the dance floor mean that an official could say that the premises must be licensed, or does the dance floor have to be removed? That question has been raised by the industry, because the financial provision of pubs will be affected. What is a dance floor?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I come to the third part of the argument, because we need to consider the matter as a whole. I refer to the availability of licences. One is not going to have a dance floor in a nightclub unless one is proposing to dance, and one is not going to dance except to music—at least, not in my experience. Any licensed premises, such as a nightclub or pub, which is selling alcohol, is going to have an alcohol licence to start with. At the same time as applying for its alcohol licence, and at no extra charge, it will be able to apply for an entertainment licence.
	As I have made clear, the judgment on the entertainment licence will not be made on the basis that the music is live or recorded, or amplified or not amplified. It will be made on whether an audience is present that needs to be protected on the grounds of public safety, and whether protection is needed for those who live around. The conditions that will be applied to the licence relate not to whether it is live or recorded or amplified or not amplified but to whether health and safety and public safety requirements are met by the premises and by the emission of noise and other disturbance from the premises. In other words, they could be controlled in terms of the numbers of decibels, such as a requirement for a lower level of noise later at night. All those matters can be dealt with in the conditions of the individual licence.
	Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into all the detail into which many of the amendments go, except for the purposes of explanation, as we do in paragraph 2 of the schedule. The purpose of facilities is to have entertainment, for which they will need a licence. The purpose of protection from licences is to discriminate not between one form of entertainment and another but in terms of public safety and public nuisance. That purpose is set out in the licensing objectives, although we have not yet come to that part of the Bill.
	Taking the amendments in more detail, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that, if there is any concern about rehearsal studios or music practice, those rooms are not subject to licensing. The playing of music at either of those would not constitute regulated entertainment because it would not satisfy the first condition set out in the schedule, which is that the entertainment must be,
	"for members of the public or a section of the public",
	or for "members of a club" or their guests, or "for consideration". There would be no audience at a rehearsal studio or practice, and no,
	"consideration . . . with a view to profit".
	I believe that the Committee will agree, however, that when there is a public dress rehearsal or press night, for which people are not paying but to which they are invited, the same issues of public safety and nuisance arise as if it were a paid public performance. Therefore, it should be subject to licensing.
	Amendment No. 18 would add dancing and making music to the list of descriptions of entertainment in paragraph 2. The performance of live music and any playing of recorded music is already caught, so I do not understand what that amendment would add.
	Amendment No. 19 would amend the description of entertainment by including entertainment provided for the purpose of "participation by the public" in addition to that provided for,
	"an audience and . . . for the purpose . . . of entertaining that audience.
	If an audience is present when an entertainment under the Bill is carried out, and the other conditions of the schedule are satisfied, the entertainment will be licensable. The Committee will agree that issues of public safety and nuisance arise under those circumstances. The participation or otherwise of the audience does not make any difference as to whether a licence would be required.
	I was asked a specific question about where incidental music is exempted. Paragraph 7, in Part 2 of the schedule, exempts,
	"recorded music . . . that . . . is incidental to some other activity",
	whether that is selling music, shopping, walking in the streets or travelling up and down in a lift. I believe that sort of music to be absolutely horrible, but it is not, and should not, be licensable.

Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps it will be a subject for future regulation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not in this Bill.

Baroness Buscombe: I find the Minister's reply depressing, in the sense that it has raised more questions than it has answered. I shall want to read his comments carefully in Hansard. For example, if there is a party to which there are invited guests, does a gatecrasher trigger the need for a licence?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. I shall not find out where it mentions gatecrashers in the Bill.

Baroness Buscombe: The point I am making surely shows that our amendment would simplify the Bill. It would remove the vague reference to facilities and concentrate on the description of entertainment, so that we can all understand to what extent licensing will be required.
	There are questions of health and safety and with regard to the effect on the area around the premises, but we remain confused about the extent of the meaning of "facility". In later amendments we shall develop the argument about why the schedule needs clear amendment. All we are doing in the amendments to which I have spoken is to seek to assist the Government in simplifying the schedule so that it focuses on the entertainment itself, and on the impact that that entertainment will have on its environment.
	We shall read carefully what the Minister said. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that if the Government do not accept the amendments, we shall probably return to the matter on Report. This is an important area of the Bill, in relation to which we have been lobbied heavily because it raises so many questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 108, line 14, leave out "to any extent"

Baroness Buscombe: Amendment No. 4 relates to paragraph (2) of Schedule 1. Does the phrase,
	"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public",
	mean that any entertainment to which the public may be admitted will be covered, even if the purpose of the entertainment is mostly or nearly entirely private? Will the performance—this question has to an extent already been asked—of a concert by children for their parents at a school, village hall or elsewhere be a performance for,
	"a section of the public",
	even if all those in the hall are related to or know the children and no consideration was provided? How wide will the provision cast the net? I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: The Bill appears vague and somewhat confusing and is therefore almost a paradise for lawyers, who will need to explain what we meant when we passed this wonderful Bill. Will the issues raised by it be covered by the guidance, which of course has not yet been published?

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendment. It was said earlier that weddings will be for invited guests but my experience is that if a wedding is in a church, the public are not excluded; anyone can walk in. The phrase, "to any extent" could mean that that answer about the church might not be correct. Similarly, the point about the gatecrasher might be covered by that phrase. It is a very sweeping phrase and I support its removal from the schedule.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I ask the Minister—I am glad that she has regained her dulcet voice—whether agreeing to the amendment would make any difference. Paragraph 1(2)(a) of the schedule states,
	"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public".
	Even if one removed "to any extent", the phrase "a section of the public" could mean two people. If one wants to carry home the point, another amendment will be needed next time. Will the Minister confirm that?

Lord Carlile of Berriew: The phrase, "to any extent" will be pored over by the courts; the whole Bill will provide a field-day for lawyers and there will be a huge number of judicial review applications as a result of the transfer to councils of licensing responsibility. What the Minister says in Committee about the words "to any extent" will be pored over, bearing in mind the Pepper v Hart decision, which allows courts to look at Hansard in certain circumstances.
	I intervene on this issue to try to tease out of this Minister, having tried with the previous Minister, whether this provision provides a gateway through which small charities, such as those that I mentioned earlier, can go. If the event is organised on the basis that tickets are sold by people with a particular interest so as to invite some members of the public to private premises—a village hall or church, for example—in order to support a charity, will the words allow us not to have to apply for a licence? If not, what do they mean, if anything at all?

Lord Bridges: I raise another example, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might care to consider. I speak as a former vice-president of the Aldeburgh Foundation. One of our most successful activities are the Britten-Pears musical schools, in which a number of masterclasses are given by experts: singers, violinists and so on. They are extremely interesting events, to which one can go and pay a small fee. Not many people can go but they are generally very popular. If one is ambitious to become a Lieder singer, one will learn much by going to listen to a masterclass. At the moment, the funds received, which are not considerable, go to help to pay for the foundation's expenses. Would they be caught by the phrase "to any extent"? I suppose that they will be.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister may regard my observation as dated but I raise a footnote to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I offer to the Chamber the remark by Raymond Asquith's mother-in-law, Lady Horner, in about 1900. She said that there is no social event in the entire kingdom to which one cannot gain access by writing "Admit two" on your visiting card.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I remember many years ago being in Carmel, California, for the summer musical festival and discovering that, as is often the case, fire safety regulations were at odds with security. If one went up the fire escape, one could get into part of the hall and obviate the need to pay for a ticket at the door. I hasten to say that I have not done that for many years!
	I can answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, very simply. Of course the public can go into weddings, but weddings are not covered because they are religious services. I was discussing wedding parties; in other words, the "do" afterwards, not the wedding service. That also applies, I believe, to the register office.
	I shall respond to the amendment about the phrase "to any extent" before dealing with some of the other challenges. Members of the Committee may appreciate why we wanted to group these amendments: all the questions being raised could and should have been raised in relation to the subject matter of Schedule 1.
	Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 defines the "provision of regulated entertainment" for the purposes of the Bill. Sub-paragraph (2)(a) sets out the condition that the "entertainment or entertainment facilities" must be provided,
	"to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public".
	That is one of three alternative descriptions in the paragraph that must be satisfied for the entertainment to be regulated. The amendment seeks the removal of the phrase "to any extent" in that condition. That expression is understood by the courts. I say that with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It removes any argument that the provision of entertainment for any number of people, including a single person attending an event, if only for part of that event, is covered by the licensing regime.
	There are entertainments—some fringe entertainments at the Edinburgh Festival—at which only one person turns up. I have heard of an entertainment on the fringe of the Edinburgh Festival at which only one person was allowed to be present; in other words, it was a one-to-one entertainment. However, the consideration in this regard, as always, is about the twin issues of public safety and protection of the public from public nuisance. If we took out the phrase "to any extent" there would be the possibility that the definition of "members of the public" and "section of the public" could be open to misinterpretation and a good deal of argument. The law must be clear for venue operators.
	I was asked a number of specific questions, which I shall try to answer, anticipating future amendments in future groups. School concerts, surely, are for invited guests—that is, the parents and relatives of those in the school—and are therefore not covered.
	I have already dealt with the issue of the wedding service. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about Aldeburgh masterclasses, I have only got into a masterclass once—

Lord Carlile of Berriew: Will the Minister—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to finish my sentence; I am trying to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
	I have got in only once because the tickets are very difficult to get hold of; but, yes, they are licensable activities. They are for members of the public and issues of public safety and public nuisance apply.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He made an assertion that school concerts are for parents and members of the school. That is right. But, now, in a great many schools where school concerts are given by, for example, the school orchestra, the local community is invited to attend the concert and to pay money for a ticket; nevertheless, it is the school concert. Will that be included within the licensing requirements and, if so, is that reasonable?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If any query were to arise on the basis of public safety and public nuisance, it would be in relation to the exemption which is being made only for those who are invited to school concerts. The answer is: yes, if the public attend, the event will be licensable because issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. However, the question should be: should events which are not open to the public be licensable because issues of public nuisance and public safety arise? Perhaps I may be allowed to finish and I shall then give way to noble Lords in turn. The fundamental consideration must be public nuisance and public safety. Within that, we are trying to be as deregulatory as we can. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.

Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister. He mentioned public nuisance and public safety and, quite legitimately, that has been the catch-all for a number of his points. However, we are talking about schools, churches or certain other institutions that are already covered by health and safety guidelines on safety at work. Obviously, this point will be raised in relation to churches. But this is meant to be a piece of deregulation. We are adding on top a piece of regulation which already exists because school halls are already adequately covered by fire and noise regulations. Therefore, we are simply adding a piece of secondary legislation. I believe that the Minister's point that we cannot object to this because of health and public nuisance issues somewhat misses the point of the amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. That is the reason for the exemptions. But if anyone stages a commercial concert and charges for admission, and if there is any,
	"consideration and with a view to profit",
	as stated in Schedule 1(2)(c), then clearly issues of public nuisance and public safety arise.

Lord Crickhowell: I am now utterly bemused by the argument about safety and public nuisance. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I take a keen interest in an organisation known as the National Opera Studio. The Minister will know that that organisation is responsible for training all our best young opera singers from every opera company in the country. During the course of a working week with one of our national opera companies, it usually holds a concert in a school hall. During the week, it also goes out to, and does work with, a number of schools.
	I attended the last event organised by the National Opera Studio in the school hall of a school in Penarth. I cannot see that a safety issue arises for those who attended that concert to listen to people being trained in a school hall that does not arise for anyone attending a school concert in the same building. No other question of health and safety arises from people being present to listen to those performers than it would for anyone else sitting in a school hall and listening to a performance. Therefore, I simply cannot understand the argument.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: From this side of the Chamber perhaps I may support some of the contributions thus far. I went to St Mary's Church in Battersea a week last Thursday for a musical event which raised funds for the fabric of the building. Members of the congregation and members of the public generally were charged £7.50 per head for attending. Presumably, under this provision, the church would be required to be licensed. Is that or is that not so?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to extend the debate but this is obviously a matter of huge importance and wide application. I believe that the last comment made by the Minister before he kindly gave way—I thank him again for letting me intervene—concerned consideration being charged for events. However, as he earlier said correctly, subsection (2) does not require tickets to be sold for an event in order for the event to fall within subsection (2). Therefore, taking the example of the school play, one would not need to charge anyone attending the event for the event to be caught by subsection (a) if,
	"to any extent . . . members of the public or a section of the public",
	were present.
	As the noble Lord said in defending that wording, it is designed to catch one or two people who are present for part of an entertainment. I put it to the Minister that, in fact, the organisers of most school plays, especially those held in a large hall and with several performances, encourage pupils to bring along friends. As the wording stands, I believe that if friends are allowed—indeed, encouraged—to come along to a school performance of any kind without charge, that is caught.

Lord Williamson of Horton: I am sorry to add to the woes of the Minister but perhaps I may ask for clarification on one other point. The amendment that we are discussing does not refer only to "entertainment"; as we were aware earlier, it refers also to "entertainment facilities". Those are still covered by the wording,
	"to any extent for members of the public",
	and so on. Let us take the example of a school which has its own concert facilities—a stage and so on. Normally that school would not use those facilities for the public; they would normally be used only for the school. However, under certain circumstances every year or two years, the public might be present at an event. I refer specifically to the "facilities" that are available. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the school will require a regulated entertainment licence because the facilities exist and might be used to any extent for the public. I refer not to the entertainment itself but to the facilities.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may also ask the Minister to clarify the point which follows on from the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He said that one does not necessarily have to charge. Can he clarify whether, in the school concert scenario, there is a difference if people are not specifically charged but are asked to donate? I cite as an example the case of the charge of £7.50 for the event at a church. When one enters museums, one often sees a notice saying, "Donations suggested", with an amount, even though it may be a non-charging museum. Can the noble Lord clarify whether the word "donation" makes any difference?

Lord McNally: Before the Minister reads those helpful pieces of paper that are on their way to him, perhaps I may, in a spirit of comradeship, give him a little advice. He knows of the affection that I have for him. Part of my job from these Benches is to go to another place and sit in on our parliamentary party meetings. Very rarely do I receive questions or comments on what we are doing at this end of the building. Last night, a large number of Members said that their post bags were already being filled by complaints, fears or doubts about this part of the Bill. Before the Minister plays his usual elegant, straight bat in response, perhaps I may suggest that he takes back the matter to the department. He will certainly have trouble from this end of the building and my suspicion is that, as those post bags fill up, he will also have trouble from the other end.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can get a word in edgeways—excellent! Clearly a large number of specific questions about specific cases—whether they be master classes, opera schools or whatever—have been raised, and it would be foolish of me to attempt to answer them at the Dispatch Box. I shall undertake to write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate about all the issues raised.
	There will obviously be difficulties at the margin. However, I believe that the fundamental principles that I stated in relation to Schedule 1 deal with the large bulk of the questions raised in the post bags of the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and, indeed, with the questions raised in this House.
	I want to return specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about existing health and safety legislation and whether it is being duplicated. Our existing health and safety legislation relating to the workplace covers schools. It does not matter whether it is a place of work or an educational institution; health and safety issues are addressed in a place of work or educational institution. It does not cover the issues which may arise when those premises are used for other purposes; in other words, when the public have access to entertainments which are comparable to those provided in commercial premises. The issues when large numbers of the public come into a school are different from those concerning schoolchildren in a school.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting at this late stage. As I understand it, under health and safety legislation a school hall in which 200 to 300 children sit, and where there is amplification for the teachers, is covered in the same way as a play.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What if a rock group plays in a school? There are issues of public safety and public nuisance.
	I shall try to answer as many as I can of the individual points raised in so far as they could be helpful to the general tenor of the debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton: no. Clearly, that is an exact example of an occasional licence for up to five occasions a year. He said once every year or every two years. For the reasons I have given, although that is licensable, it is on a restricted and a limited scale.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised the question of donations. Donations are not a charge made for the entertainment provided and do not give rise to the need for a licence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I apologise to the Minister, who is being extraordinarily patient. However, I believe the Committee would want me to say that that reply was unintentionally misleading. Under this paragraph, it does not matter whether there is a charge, a donation or nothing. That is the point. As was rightly said in introducing the amendment, there are three alternatives, any one of which being satisfied brings in the whole of the registration procedure.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The word used in the Bill is not charge but:
	"for consideration and with a view to profit".
	Donations, which are clearly voluntary, do not fall within that category.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He was right the first time. In order for this paragraph to be applicable, it is not necessary for there to be any consideration or a view to profit. Regardless of that, one is caught if members of the public, or any section of the public, to any extent are present at the occasion, full stop.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is right, and that is why issues of public safety and public nuisance arise. That is exactly the reason.
	I did not properly deal, except flippantly, with gatecrashers. The answer is that a gatecrasher would not make an event licensable, because the entertainment has not been provided for the public. The entertainment must be provided for the public in order to bring it within the regime. If someone gatecrashes your wedding party, you are not in retrospect guilty of not having applied for a licence.

Baroness Buscombe: I do not know where to begin. I shall try to be brief. In relation to previous amendments, the Minister said that it is unnecessary to go into all the detail. I hope he now accepts that we are raising significant questions with regard to clarity and the implications of the Bill, which require answers.
	I am grateful to the Minister, as I am sure are all noble Lords, for offering to write to us to give answers to some of the questions raised. However, surely the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right when he says that as currently drafted, this provision will create a field day for lawyers. As a lawyer, I support that. I simply do not understand some of the answers given by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Brooke put it succinctly and summed up the problem. When referring to how to get round the problem of an event which is private, one has an invitation card on which one writes, "Admit 2". The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right. Perhaps the amendment is not the right one, and we should consider excluding the whole of the subsection.
	Questions have been asked about weddings as religious services. Sadly, many weddings today are not religious services, although now we are told that they do not need to be religious in order to be exempt from the Bill. There is much here that is unclear. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, rightly said in relation to school concerts that schools are subject to considerable burdens in relation to health and safety issues—quite rightly. However, this is another layer of regulation. We believe passionately that this is entirely against what we were led to believe; that is, that this would be a deregulatory measure. The Bill will give us more regulation, more red tape, and more cost.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly said that complaints following this debate alone will mean that our postboxes will be fuller than they have been hitherto, as will our e-mail accounts. We shall consider with care the Minister's remarks. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We hope very much that the Government will consider carefully before Report all that has been said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 108, line 14, at end insert "(otherwise than by an educational or religious institution)"

Baroness Buscombe: We now turn to another important area. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which we entirely support, and to Amendment No. 24.
	The amendments relate to the question of whether "public" should include educational and religious institutions. We ask whether schools, churches, synagogues and mosques will be required to have premises licences for the performance of plays and concerts. This subject was covered to some extent by previous amendments. However, I believe it is important that we now consider this in detail.
	While there is an exception for religious meetings and services in paragraph (9) of the schedule, that does not appear to extend, for example, to an orchestral concert or a play performed in a church, cathedral or other religious building. Do the Government intend that where such activities are performed in religious buildings, they would be licensable, and that therefore a premises licence would be required if there were more than five such occasions in any one year?
	What does the Minister have to say in respect of the Written Answer in another place given on Monday 9th December at col. 1W to my honourable friend Anne McIntosh, by the Second Church Estate's Commissioner, Mr Stuart Bell, which was as follows:
	"Final figures for complying with the proposed provisions of the current Licensing Bill, which has had a second reading in Another Place, will depend upon the level of fees set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, as well as on the extent to which church buildings apply for licences to cover the proposed provisions of 'regulated entertainment'. The figures provided in the Regulatory Impact Assessment would, however, suggest that under the Bill's proposals churches or other places of worship seeking to provide entertainment five times a year would pay £100 each year. If more events than this were required, a full licence would be needed and annual inspections would be necessary, each of which would attract a fee.
	There are 16,250 church buildings belonging to the Church of England alone: many other denominations and faiths will also be covered by the proposals as they stand".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/02; col. 1W.]
	If each of those 16,250 buildings had to pay £100—never mind the fee that would be attracted in terms of inspections—the cost to the Church Commissioners would be £1.6 million. The level of fees would probably be much higher than £100 in many cases, as they would require full premises licences if they held more than five concerts, plays or "other entertainment" events in any one year.
	Does the Minister intend that such costs to churches of all denominations should be attached to the consequences of this legislation? In essence, does this mean that the proposals will cost the Church of England and other religious communities of whatever faith, many millions of pounds in licence fees, either in the form of temporary event notices or full premises licences?
	There are no exceptions for schools. Thus, will school halls be required to have premises licences and/or issue temporary event notices? Schools put on plays and concerts—defined as "entertainment" in paragraph 2—for
	"the public or a section of the public",
	and the premises are,
	"made available for the purpose . . . of enabling the entertainment . . . to take place".
	Thus, all the conditions for the provision of regulated entertainment laid down in paragraph 1(1) are satisfied. What discussions have been held with the Department for Education and Skills about the position of schools?
	I conclude by referring to one of many letters I have received, particularly in relation to churches. I was written to by a well-known actress, Prunella Scales. She wrote:
	"Many rural churches, struggling financially, asked to find £200–£300 for a licence would simply not consent to the use of the church by village organisations and schools".
	Is that really what the Government intend? She continued:
	"The Church of England is struggling to maintain ancient churches which are part of the Nation's Heritage with very little help from the state. Only two English Heritage/Lottery grants have been made to Sussex churches [for example] in the last three years, and VAT is still 5 per cent".
	Prunella Scales went on to say:
	"Churches need new roofs and urgent work on spires. The only way open to them to raise money is by the holding of concerts. Again, even reduced Health and Safety and Fire standards would be difficult or impossible to meet.
	What effect will this have on the cultural and musical life of the country? At present, students from the London College of Music gain experience performing in local churches. Financial and administrative obstacles would deter churches from providing this opportunity.
	What evidence is there to show that churches need to be included in this legislation?"
	As I said at Second Reading, the Government have shown their support for evidence-based research in draft legislation in relation to the draft communications Bill. What evidence-based approach can we see in relation to this Bill? I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her speech. I agree with much of what she says. The amendment standing in my name covers ground that is treated by other noble Lords, but it is not tabled in a spirit of unseemly competition. We simply wish to help the Minister, who will be understandably concerned to secure some form of words that would protect from any abuse a general exemption for places of public religious worship and educational institutions.
	Many of the arguments for maintaining the present position were rehearsed at Second Reading. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by repeating them and delaying the Committee proceedings. The exemption was approved by Parliament in 1982 and we have heard no argument that justifies removing it. The present situation has assisted places of worship to fulfil their wider community role, as they have for centuries.
	Since Second Reading, some two-and-a-half weeks ago, countless examples have come to light of just how close the relationship of church and community entertainment often is. St Paul's, Covent Garden, for example, is a place that provides facilities for young musicians and actors at the beginning of their careers, while children from local schools and special art schools use the space for concerts and drama.
	We have already heard examples from across the river in Southwark diocese. I must say that I admire the scale of fees it seems to be charging just across the Thames. But as to the situation countrywide, I have been told of one church in Ludlow which has held 27 performances so far this year, ranging from the local choral society to the rugby club. A church in Carlisle has detailed 10 events from organ recitals to a concert by local people. They are far from being money-spinners; for example, that programme in the church in Carlisle has been subsidised.
	That is an important point which has been emphasised again and again in correspondence. Some of the events are simply seen as part of the church's outreach into the local community. Some are intended, as in the example we had from Battersea, to raise funds, but usually for charity or to maintain the building itself. Many places of public religious worship are listed as important parts of the architectural inheritance of the whole community. Nearly one-half of Grade I listed buildings in the country are ecclesiastical. They are cared for, very cost effectively I may say, on behalf of the whole community by an army of volunteers. If unamended, the Bill would represent a further tax on their efforts.
	I note Dr Howells' comment in his letter to The Times that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to waive or reduce charges for places of worship and charities, but that would still be an added layer of regulation imposed on hard-pressed volunteers by a Bill with the laudable aim of deregulation.
	I fear very much—Prunella Scales has got the matter absolutely right—that if volunteers contemplate the costs of obtaining a licence, the time involved in annual inspections and making temporary notifications, they will conclude that it would be safer and simpler not to hold the events at all. This is a very law-abiding part of the community and I can hear in my inner ear now the anxious debates on the PCC.
	I know very well that this would be a long way from the intentions of DCMS. The department's paper A Force for Our Future argues cogently for the wider use of heritage buildings for community activity and as a focus for tourism and regeneration. There is an army of unpaid volunteers countrywide who are trying to do just that. They need encouragement.
	The amendment I have tabled, with the support of friends from all the major faith communities—I must underline that this is not just a Church of England pitch—seeks to provide this encouragement by exempting from the definition of "regulated entertainment" events in a place of public religious worship.
	Why have we used the formula:
	"place of public religious worship"?
	Because, we understand, it is a phrase that has a clear and precise legal meaning; it covers both Christian churches and places of worship of other faiths without laying the exemption open to abuse. It is the wording that the Government themselves employed in relation to relief from rates in local government legislation.
	The second element in the amendment recognises the problems likely to arise from the attempt to exempt those entertainments that are incidental to a religious service. Of course, it is often difficult to make a clear distinction between religious services and entertainment—although unfortunately, sometimes it is only too easy. For example, how should we classify a medieval mystery play or a Christmas carol concert at which some crooner sang "White Christmas"? By inserting the word "anything", we hope to assist the Minister by avoiding confusion and making the exemption workable.
	In the light of so much that has been said in this debate and real and—judging from my post bag—growing concern, I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments and take the opportunity to improve the provisions by taking into account the valuable contribution made to community and cultural life by educational institutions and all the nation's faith communities.

Lord Redesdale: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 24, to which my name is attached. However, I must admit that I prefer the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which I should have supported if I had read it in time. The amendments highlight a massive concern that goes to the heart of the Bill. The Bill is "one size fits all"; it deals with massive venues as well as the smallest church in the land.
	I raised with my local church, St Marks, the question of a Nativity concert of a school nursery that was based in the church. I asked whether the Bill would apply but, being in London, it already has a public entertainment licence. St Marks could perhaps bear the cost. However, my local church in Northumberland, which has a congregation of eight, would find it a different matter altogether.
	I support everything that the right reverend Prelate said. We shall return to the issue, and I hope that the Minister will make some concession on it, because I am sure that if the right reverend Prelate were to press it, it would receive support from around the Committee.
	I have two questions. Are carol concerts covered under paragraph 9 of the exemptions? What about instrumental music? What if there was a religious service, an orchestra performed and at the end of the orchestra's performance a prayer was said? Would the orchestra's performance become part of the incidental music and therefore exempt under the Bill?

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I do not want to add to the arguments advanced by my friend the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, but I want to stress the widespread concern about the matter and the importance of churches and religious buildings in the cultural life of the countryside. In my episcopal ministry, I have served in two dioceses—Peterborough and Chichester—which are typical of the English countryside. They combine urban settlements, small towns and even smaller villages. In all of those settings, churches and other places of public religious worship are increasingly used by the local community for concerts, school plays—as we have heard—and other cultural activities.
	My predecessor was probably unfair when he described Peterborough as a cultural desert, but without Music in Country Churches, Music in Quiet Places, the Oundle Organ Festival, Music in Lyddington—and so the list could go on—the cultural life of our communities would be considerably impoverished. Many of those events use a variety of venues in different villages and different churches, all of which would have to apply at least for a temporary licence under the proposals. Many of the organisations involved run on a small and fragile budget and, as we have heard, are subject to subsidy.
	I therefore warmly support the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the schedule. It would be anomalous on the one hand to encourage the increasing use of churches and other places of religious worship for cultural purposes by the community and on the other to add financial and bureaucratic burdens that could frustrate that purpose. When, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence of abuse of the current exemption, why are the Government legislating to remove it and require those places to seek a licence?

Lord Ahmed: I rise to support the amendment, and that in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. As a Muslim, I know that musical events do not affect the Muslim community. However, cultural activities do, and, in any case, in solidarity with all religious groups and places of worship, I support the amendment.
	Before I became a Member of the House, I was a local councillor, and from my experience I know that many groups use places of worship such as churches for cultural events—especially those people who cannot afford to go to opera houses. Places of worship are the local, community place available to be used. I do not know of any crime and disorder in any place of worship. The White Paper talks about encouraging tourism and self-sufficient rural communities, reducing crime and disorder and reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation. I cannot see how including places of worship achieves any of those objectives.
	I support the amendment, and hope that the Minister will consider all that has been said, with which I entirely agree.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is also attached to Amendment No. 5, and I support everything that has been said so far. It is extraordinary that at a time when schools have been working so hard to forge good relationships across the whole community by bringing people in to use school premises sensibly and by holding events for all kinds of groups in the community, they should then be penalised for doing so by having to pay a fee.
	I turn to the community work of and cultural activities in cathedrals and churches, which have been so greatly valued by the community. Southwark Cathedral, where I worship, has a full, constant programme of events. I must tell my noble friend Lord Luke that we once had a knifing in Southwark Cathedral, but that was in the middle of a carol service, not of an alternative cultural event. I do not think that a licence for a carol service would have helped.
	I reiterate to the Minister that it would be counter-productive and contrary to government policy to discourage the community outreach of schools, universities, colleges and churches by penalising them in that expensive way.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: A few weeks ago, I had the daunting task of cross-examining the right reverend Prelate in the Central Criminal Court. I am, therefore, pleased to speak on the same side as him, on this occasion—again, some might say.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My noble friend should make it clear that the right reverend Prelate was not the accused.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: He was not the accused.
	I want to say a word about small music festivals. Immediately, I declare an interest or, at least, the interest of my wife, who is chairman of the Gregynog festival in mid-Wales. It is one of a large number of small music festivals that operate on a shoestring but bring high-quality music to communities that cannot always gain access to it. However, I shall not use my wife's festival as my example.
	I want to draw the Committee's attention to three other examples. One is the Llanfyllen festival, which takes place in a small town on the Montgomeryshire-Shropshire border. The festival depends entirely on the remarkable goodwill of the Allegri String Quartet, who perform two or three concerts there every year as a result of the fact that a retired member of the quartet has a holiday home locally. Festivals such as the Llanfyllen festival have no financial margin of error; they operate on a shoestring. Indeed, that festival recently had to reduce the number of concerts.
	The festival takes place in a beautiful church that is not full every Sunday, despite the great efforts of the local rector, but it is more or less full for the festival concerts. It brings people into the church; it brings the church into the mind of the people; it binds the community together; and it brings high-quality culture to that small town. If there is to be a charge that falls on the church, it will have to be passed on to the festival. If it is passed on to the festival, the festival may no longer be viable.
	Another example is the remarkable English Haydn Festival, which takes place in a church in Bridgnorth. The church is redundant, but, I believe, it is still consecrated. It is a large festival in terms of the quantity of Haydn's music that is brought to the community around Bridgnorth, in Shropshire and mid-Wales. It, too, is run on a shoestring. A sum of £1,000 makes a huge difference, and £100 makes some difference. As I said, the church in which the English Haydn Festival at Bridgnorth takes place is no longer used for regular religious worship, but the festival provides a rationale for the retention of the building, which is in a crucial architectural position in the historic centre of a town that has, over the years, seen some poor development round its edges. So, as well as the cultural issue, there are architectural and civic issues.
	The third example relates to the activities of an organisation with which my wife and I have had some dealings over the years—the Welshpool Choral Society. Not so many years ago, the Welshpool Choral Society sang the "Messiah" in Welshpool parish church. The society paid an organist to play for the occasion and sold tickets to the public. It lost a lot of money. We who sang had to pay for the privilege of singing and did so gladly, but the margins on which such small societies operate mean that extra charges will possibly bring such events to an end, along with the involvement of the community.
	I already hear the Minister saying, "Ah, but we must be sure that health and safety law isn't broken. The same rules apply". I suppose that we will hear from the Minister that there is a danger at a chamber concert of the cello being played too loud and that there will have to be licensing conditions before it takes place. That is illogical. Under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, a gospel rock band taking part in a religious service would not require licensing under the Act. There is a great deal of such activity, particularly in evangelical churches throughout the country. I have witnessed it myself in mid-Wales.
	The schedule will create a bureaucratic nightmare that will drive small musical performances, particularly the smallest music festivals—which mostly take place in rural areas—out of existence for the sake of what appears to be only the principle of uniformity. I strongly support the amendments.

Lord Crickhowell: I can be brief, as the case that I was going to make has just been admirably made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was going to speak on the same subject—music festivals, particularly music festivals in Wales. The case was also comprehensively and adequately presented from my Front Bench and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I prefer the right reverend Prelate's amendment to the other amendment.
	I speak, I suppose, as a representative of the disestablished Church in Wales. I am churchwarden of a small church in a group of parishes in a Welsh valley. I think that I could speak equally well for the chapels of Wales, in which the same situation would arise. The importance to churches and communities of the kind of social and entertainment activities that have been described by speakers on the Bishops' Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and, indeed, the Government Benches, cannot be over-emphasised.
	I have two detailed points. One—on health and safety—has just been made. In the church of Crickhowell, there is a wonderful choral festival every year. We all sit in the seats that we might have occupied at a church service the previous week or at a wedding. In fact, there are almost exactly the same numbers as there would be for a large wedding service or as there were recently for the funeral of a popular local figure. I cannot see that there can be a health and safety question that arises for the people who attend the concert that does not arise for those who are present for a funeral or a wedding. I find the argument on health and safety utterly unconvincing and incomprehensible. As the right reverend Prelate also said, there has been exemption for about a hundred years, and no good case has been made for removing it.
	For all the reasons so cogently given and as a passionate supporter of the kind of concerts and musical activities that take place all over the country—certainly in my part of the country—I strongly support the amendments. I suspect that they will not be pressed to a Division today, but I hope that, if the Government do not listen to our arguments, there will be an occasion later in the progress of the Bill when we can vote for the right reverend Prelate's amendment.

Lord Williamson of Horton: Many noble Lords have spoken about the disadvantages of what is in the Bill, and I support what they said. However, I ask the Minister to set out in her reply the reasons why the proposal is in the Bill. I am an ex-bureaucrat, and I have a vivid imagination, but I am unable to see why it is in the Bill. It is not sufficient to make a general argument about health and safety. It is not sufficient just to say that there could be a problem with health and safety in some parish church or elsewhere. I am not convinced by that argument; we need a lot more than that, if we are to respond to the Government's position. At present, I see no reason to do that.
	I have one other question. Is there a district council in the kingdom that has asked for the power?

Lord Bridges: There is one aspect of the clauses that has not yet come to our attention—their financial effect. Although it is made clear who will conduct the licensing, there is no procedure for appeals against the amount of the fee for the licence or the annual inspection. The relevant references are Clause 54 and Schedule 5.
	I know the effect that it will have on my parish church, which is a Grade I listed building, with 130 people on the church roll. We are at a loss as to how we would finance activities without collaring four or five string quartets who come each year to play in the excellent acoustic. That helps us. Not only will we lose that amount, but we may have to pay more. The district council's finances are always in a difficult condition. If it sees that it can up the ante and charge more, as far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from doing so. Therefore, I believe that this is a serious matter and hope that we shall adopt one of the two amendments to those clauses. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I have a marginal preference for that produced by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: To follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I should be grateful if the Minister would say what would be the average cost of an annual visit for licence purposes, if one has to be undertaken.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support the previous speeches and, in particular, that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. St Leonard's Church in Bridgnorth—the home of the Haydn concert to which he referred—will undoubtedly be affected by the type of charges that are in contemplation. Astley Abbots is a small village two miles outside Bridgnorth and I have known the church all my life.
	The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London referred to Ludlow. That brings us to wider implications of the Bill. St Lawrence church, Ludlow, where the concerts to which he referred take place, does not just maintain the fabric of the church—good though that is—it also maintains the grave of A E Housman, the famous poet and writer of "A Shropshire Lad", in the churchyard. Therefore, all those activities have more to offer the community than first appears to be the case. I very much support those amendments and I hope that the Government will consider them and return with a sensible and thought-through amendment to the Bill.

The Earl of Sandwich: I simply want to underline the important point of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London as regards public access. I speak as someone with some years experience of small rural communities in the West Country where the tiny parish church is often an important—if not the only—focus of rural life. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is the Government's own heritage policy—is it not?—to encourage access to all our public buildings and make every possible use of, say, churches built for a religious purpose. In the case of my local community, half the church is a badminton court.
	I am partly responsible for access to a tiny church. I feel that any licensing system would be a nonsense and would deprive churches of income that they desperately need for repair and maintenance.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I seem fated in these debates to be adding footnotes to speeches made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Those ancestors of mine who sat as Liberal Members of Parliament in another place are, I hope, smiling in yet another place, to see me do it. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Churches Conservation Trust. That is a trust which maintains the very church in Bridgnorth to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred. It maintains in excess of 300 other churches as well.
	The Minister will know particularly well how the Churches Conservation Trust is encouraged by her department to engage in outreach to a national public. That involves making available for events, as well as for the occasional services, churches which, long before they came into the hands of the trust, were declared redundant by the Church of England. Moreover, in addition to holding events, as a method of outreach, it is the case that ancient buildings gain immensely by being used and not simply being left shut up. The Minister, again, is particularly well qualified to recognise the irony that 70 per cent of the funding for the Churches Conservation Trust comes from her department.

Baroness Blackstone: The common intention of Amendments Nos. 5, 23 and 24, is to exclude places of worship from the entertainment aspects of the licensing regime. Amendment No. 5 goes further and also exempts educational institutions.
	I am sure that all Members of the Committee will want to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on our churches. I entirely accept that, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London said, unnecessary burdens should be avoided. The Bill, as currently drafted, exempts all music and other entertainment which is for, or incidental to, a religious meeting or service. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that would certainly include carol services. However, it does not exempt secular entertainments in churches or other places of worship, as I believe those who have taken part in the debate clearly understand. It is that matter to which many speakers object.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, asked—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting so early and am grateful to her for giving way. I believe that she may have misled the Committee inadvertently in saying that incidental music was exempted by the Bill. It is only recorded incidental music that is exempt, under paragraph 7.

Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that incidental music was exempt. I said that programmes such as carol services are exempt. But it would be so much easier if I could complete what I want to say without being interrupted—it might make some difference to how we proceed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, asked why those provisions were inserted. I have to remind the Committee, again, of a matter that arose at the beginning of the debate. Churches in London are already subject to a premises licence regime. Concerts take place in London churches. I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey is involved in some of those concerts. They are not just in rural areas, although there are many in rural areas too.
	I believe that it was thought right that one regime should apply to the whole country and that this was an anomaly. Of course, Members can argue that the Government could have gone in the other direction and taken London out, rather than that there should be one rule for churches in London and another rule for churches in rural areas. I entirely accept that it could go in that direction rather than being extended to cities, towns and villages elsewhere in the country.
	We are naturally concerned that the Bill should treat all faiths equally—indeed, it must, as my noble friend Lord Ahmed said. A definition which properly includes all potential places of religious worship and does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill is no easy matter. Members need to think about so-called "new-age" religions and "raves" which some people believe masquerade as worship—and, indeed, they sometimes do. Therefore, we should be extremely careful before settling on a form of words which does not protect bona fide places of worship.
	Therefore, we intend to consider our position again in respect of places of worship and to do so carefully. I undertake to return at a later stage and address a way forward. In those circumstances I hope that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 will not be pressed today.
	The issues that arise from Amendment No. 5 also came up in the previous debate. It calls for educational institutions to be exempt from the licensing regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether the Department for Education and Skills had been consulted, and the answer is no. There was no need to consult it because we are not changing the position of schools or colleges in any way in the legislation. In so far as schools, colleges, universities or any other educational institutions involve the public in paid events, they are currently not exempt from the licensing regime.
	We should be absolutely clear that the provisions of the Licensing Bill—or, indeed, of the current regime—will not affect musical instruction or musical tuition. The performance of live music falls within the scope of the Bill where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose of entertaining that audience. Tuition is not provided for the purposes of entertainment but for the purposes of instruction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the possibility of a teacher or head teacher standing in front of a very large group of 500 or even 1,000 children and possibly having amplification. That teacher or head teacher is clearly not there for the purposes of entertainment—although some of the pupils might find what he or she has to say entertaining, or might seek to find it entertaining—but for the purpose of instruction. I can again assure the House that entertainment provided without charge for pupils, their parents and other invited guests is not a licensable activity. It is a private event to which the public are not admitted and no charges are made. However, it would probably be wrong to go further and exempt automatically schools, colleges and universities which stage public and commercial concerts. They sometimes stage extremely large pop and rock concerts where public disorder can take place. The public safety implications of such concerts in terms of very loud noise and disturbance are no different from other commercial concerts. I hope that the Committee will accept that point. Some schools put on first-rate commercial performances—sometimes with professional orchestras—but the safety of the public must be our first concern.
	Having made a very important concession—which I hope will be welcomed—that we will go back and look carefully at the issue of an exemption for churches which is watertight and not subject to all kinds of difficulties, including cases being taken to court, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Redesdale: Before the Minister sits down, she asked a perhaps rhetorical question about whether London should be exempt or the rest of the country. Although the debate has centred around the difference between London, being a metropolitan area, and rural communities, especially Wales, it is only London and not the rest of the country, rural or urban, that falls within this category. So it is only the position of London that is at issue.

Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister, as are all noble Lords, for the concession that she will reconsider whether or not places of worship and religious establishments should be exempted. I wrote down three words while noble Lords were speaking to this issue—"heritage", "cultural" and "community". Next to those words I wrote, "It is not worth it". Is this really what the Department for Culture, Media and Sport really intends? I think not.
	A number of important points have been made. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough said that there is no evidence of abuse of present legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said that the Bill is intended to reduce crime and disorder and encourage tourism, and that that is exactly what places of worship and schools are doing already across the country. As my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark added, they are building relationships in the community.
	We have had a full debate. We all believe passionately that religious establishments should be exempted. We on these Benches also believe that the position of educational establishments should be reconsidered and that they should form part of the concession to which the Minister has kindly agreed for the many reasons given by noble Lords.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, asked what are the reasons for including schools and places of worship. I return to the point that I made—perhaps not forcibly enough—in relation to previous amendments: that the Government expressly support the evidence-based approach to drafting legislation. May we please now have the evidence, particularly in relation to schools? We cannot agree with the Minister that the Bill means no change for schools.
	I again thank the Minister for her concession. I am glad that the Government will reconsider the amendments. Given that several noble Lords said that they prefer the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I have drafted a different amendment should we need to bring it forward on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the Minister wish me to proceed with the next amendment three minutes before the lunch break?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It will cut what I have to say into two parts.

Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: First course and second course.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 108, line 19, at end insert—
	"other than in circumstances where the whole proceeds of the entertainment, after deduction of expenses thereof, and the relevant expenses of any exempt lottery under the provisions hereof, are applied for purposes other than private gain"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The disadvantage with the previous set of amendments is that they cover only a very small part of the concern mentioned. The crucial point—which, by now, the Committee may fully comprehend but I am not sure that the Government Front Bench do—is that even if you have a case where there is no consideration made for an event with a view to profit, you will still be caught under paragraph (a). So all the ecclesiastical occasions referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London would still be caught under paragraph (a).
	Three possibilities will sweep up entertainments and catch them within the tentacles of the Bill. The first—and much the most dangerous—is any event to which, to any extent, members of the public or a section of the public are admitted. Even if the right reverend Prelate's amendment had been carried, that would still catch all the ecclesiastical events to which he referred.
	More important, it is clear from what has been said that the Committee demands that the whole of the voluntary sector—the little clubs, organisations and charities that fortunately proliferate in this kingdom—is not caught up in a new, complicated and expensive regime.
	At Second Reading I referred to the fete held for my local church, St Gregory's, in my garden. I ventured to suggest that under the Bill it would be caught in four ways. I received an astonished look and a shaking of the head from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have gone back to the Bill and I must tell him that each of the four circumstances I mentioned are caught by the Bill.
	First, we have a puppet show. That is caught because it is the performance of a play. Secondly, we have a barrel-organ. That is caught because it is the performance of live music. Thirdly, we have a folk singing group. That is certainly caught, being a performance of live music. Lastly, we always have a small group of country dancers. That is caught as a performance of dance. As if that were not enough, we have a raffle—who does not?—and some tickets are sold beyond the gates of the fete because that is where we get money from the non-believers. That is caught under Clause 172, dealing with the raffle and tombola exemption, for the reason that a bottle of whisky is always given as one of the prizes—I give it.
	If I may say so with respect, what we need to concentrate on is not the Churches, vital and important though they are, but voluntary society as a whole. I venture to suggest that anyone in this Chamber who runs through the voluntary organisations in his or her own community—the Scouts, the Royal British Legion, the choirs, the clubs, the Brownies, the Rotary clubs, and so on—will see that every one of them is caught under one or other of the Bill's many-headed branches.
	I venture to suggest that Amendment No. 6 would exempt all those voluntary and charitable organisations that hold these types of events, not for profit but to increase their own resources. I have used the language of Clause 172 dealing with exempt raffles. I am hopeful, therefore, that the amendment will be acceptable, at least in terms of its drafting. However, as I believe other Members of the Committee will agree, this is an extremely dense and interlocking Bill into which to insert amendments that do nor reverberate unintentionally in other parts.
	I want to emphasise a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and other speakers. There is no abuse of which I am aware in relation to the status quo—indeed, quite the contrary. Given that the Government are repeatedly on record as supporting the voluntary sector and wanting to do everything possible to aid and abet its endeavours, it is astonishing that this part of the Bill has been included.
	I want to refer to an aspect of paragraph 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1. Members of the Committee may have attended a memorial service recently. Such services are often advertised in communities so that anyone can attend. If, after the service, people are invited back to a place where there is refreshment, that occasion will be caught by the Bill if any music is provided—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head, but it is a fact—whether or not for consideration.
	To take an extreme case, if at the funeral of a well-known Welsh chorister a group of his or her friends at the reception afterwards broke into song, they would inadvertently have consigned the event to a breach of these wretched regulations. It would be an occasion to which the public were invited. There would be a performance of live music. And, hey presto, they would be sunk.
	I believe that Schedule 1 needs sinking. Short of that, I commend Amendment No 6, which I believe will come to the aid of the whole scope of voluntary and charity organisations. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to say that although I enjoyed the noble Lord's speech it does not bear much relation to the amendment or to the way in which it would affect the Bill. Paragraph 1(2) of the schedule provides under heading (a) that the condition is that the entertainment or entertainment facilities are provided,
	"for members of the public or a section of the public";
	under (b) that it is,
	"exclusively for members of a club . . . or . . . their guests";
	and under (c) that it is entertainment or entertainment facilities,
	"in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit".
	Clearly, the fete referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, does not fall under (c). It falls under (a) because it is open to the public. So amendments to (c) are irrelevant to his village fete.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry, but the Minister misunderstands my amendment. It applies to (a), (b) and (c).

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not say so. It comes at the end of line 19 rather than as an additional provision. If I have misunderstood, I am sorry, but if it is meant to apply to (a), (b) and (c), it should have been in a separate sub-paragraph.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I acted on the advice of those who purport to know, and this will apply to all three headings.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It will not. That is all I can say. I have to deal with the amendment as it is. It seeks to qualify the condition relating to profit—that is the point about heading (c)—by exempting circumstances where the proceeds of an entertainment after deductions of expenses of any exempt lottery are applied for purposes other than private gain. That is where I understand the point being made about the village fete to lie.
	The only way we could make that work would be by examining the accounts—not so much those of a village fete, but let us think, for example, of a Live Aid concert or an entertainment where people are paid to take part. I referred to such a case at Second Reading: a choir and an orchestra play in a church and the choir is not paid but the orchestra is. Are we going to examine the accounts every time? Even if the proceeds of an entertainment are not intended for private gain, they will be licensable if they are provided for members of the public—which is the village fete. Incidentally, any memorial service is exempt under Schedule 1(9).
	To return to the example, unless I wholly misunderstand the nature of his village fete, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is forgetting the provision of the Bill which says that if there is provision for an audience of less than 500, and provided that there are no more than five occasions, which can each be three days long, in any one calendar year, notice must merely be given; there is no provision for a licence. Does the noble Lord's village fete attract more than 500 people for more than three days, more than five times a year? I very much doubt it.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: A few days ago, I attended a memorial meeting of a secular nature for a celebrated forensic scientist. It was held in a room in a college at Cambridge University. Some recorded music was played, chosen by and at the request of, the deceased person's children. It seems to me that that would be caught under the Bill as it was not a religious service. If so, I invite the Minister to reconsider whether that is appropriate.
	I refer to an example I gave earlier. I am a trustee of a small mental health charity in mid-Wales which holds events in private houses, sells tickets to members of the public and, typically—because we have a large number of young harpists in Montgomeryshire—we invite a harpist to play. Are we really to be subject to licensing in such a situation? If so, it seems to me a ludicrous piece of regulation. A government who seek to support small charities such as ours, which do a lot of work that used to be done by the National Health Service, should make life easier for us, not more difficult.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, should look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which, after listing descriptions of entertainment, states,
	"where the entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience".
	The audience at the memorial meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, refers, came to honour a forensic scientist. Incidental music is not licensable.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for his response but I am unswayed by it. He is not right in saying that one does not need a licence for a fete—he said that there must be five occasions. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is wrong to say that schools are excluded from the provisions of this licensing regulation. Can she show me where they are excluded? There is no reference to schools' exclusion from this legislation. The amendment applies to sub-paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). Nothing that the Minister has said affects my case. We will certainly bring this back at the next stage.

Baroness Blackstone: Before my noble friend gets up, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I did not say that schools were exempted. On the contrary, I said that schools, colleges and HE institutions are covered by the existing licensing regime if they are holding events involving the public and charging, for commercial purposes. There is no change from the longstanding situation. We have not had complaints from either the Department of Education or schools.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: With great respect to the Minister, I heard her correctly. I am reluctant to contradict her blankly, but there is no option. She is not taking account of the fact that sub-paragraph (2)(a) stands alone. To be caught by this Bill, an event does not need to involve charging or to be run in a school for profit. The mere admission to an event of any member of the public, or any section of the public, whether or not there is a charge, will catch it, with the result that it will be licensable. That is new. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.42 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Winter Fuel Payment

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the winter fuel payment has been extended to any other groups of people in the past two years; if so, to whom; and whether they intend to extend it further in the next two years, and, if so, to whom.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, winter fuel payments were introduced in the winter of 1997–98. They are universal, non-contributory, age-related payments made to those ordinarily resident in the UK. We have recently agreed with the EU that EEA citizens receiving WFP in this country may port them to another EEA country.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Does she agree that many severely disabled pensioners receiving the attendance allowance and many severely disabled younger people receiving the disability living allowance are struggling to get by? Pensioners receive the winter fuel allowance, which is very helpful, but incredibly, the Government refuse these payments to younger severely disabled people. That cannot be right, because their needs are very similar. When will the Government reconsider this? Chronically and severely disabled people are just as vulnerable to the cold, whether they are old or young. That is why the issue needs reconsideration.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to disappoint my noble friend. It is not the case, as he says, that severely disabled people are as vulnerable to the cold as are older people. Severely disabled people are less poor than older people. Far fewer of them are in fuel poverty compared with older people. Above all, they are at far less risk of dying in the winter due to cold. Something like 95 per cent of the additional deaths that occur during the winter months are of those aged over 60 or 65. It is therefore not the case, as my noble friend says, that severely disabled people are at greater risk as a result of their disability.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has rejected the appeal by the noble Lord behind her, but can she confirm that it is possible that some people who have gone to live in warmer countries will still be in receipt of the winter fuel payment? Can she also confirm that men between 60 and 65 who were affected by the European Court's decision can still have their claims backdated three years? If that is so, how many have been paid?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the first of those two questions, some countries in the EEA, such as former French colonies, have warmer climates, but many, such as Scandinavia, Germany and the like, have very cold winter temperatures. As a result of the agreement with the EU, we expect that something like 30,000 people may be able to export their winter fuel payments. They can do so only if they acquire their eligibility while ordinarily resident in the UK. So far, about 2,000 of them have claimed it.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister please bear in mind that in some areas in the north of this country, particularly up in the mountains, the weather in the winter is very much colder than it is in the south? Will the Government please consider that people living in those areas might need more help with fuel in the winter than do people in the south? I live in one of those areas. I am lucky enough not to need such help, but I know plenty who do.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lady is right. That is why over the past year about 1.8 million cold weather payments were made, totalling something like £15 million, disproportionately to Scotland. The right answer is obviously to make sure that houses are well insulated and, as a result, people can afford to heat them properly. I am delighted to report that under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, around 400,000 households have been able to take advantage of grants of up to £1,500 to do precisely that.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the allowances that are given to the severely disabled are targeted to meet existing and current needs? Surely it is not beyond the powers of the Government's imagination or totally removed from their thinking to make a cold weather payment for the specific small group who have problems generating body heat or are incapacitated.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, somebody who is severely disabled would get full income support rates. In addition, they would get disability living allowance of up to a further £95 a week, a disability premium of another £23 a week and perhaps even a disability enhanced premium of a further £11, at a cost of something like £7 billion in extra benefits to help disabled people meet some of the additional costs of their disability. I think that is remarkably supportive treatment from the Government and we should be proud of our record.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding the progress that the Government are making on tackling child poverty, the poorest group in our society are still the children of lone parents? Do the Government have any plans to extend winter fuel payments to that group?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right. The poor in this country include pensioners and some disabled people, but, on average, while about 20 per cent of pensioners are in the bottom 20 per cent of income and only about 10 per cent—or possibly less than that—of those who are severely disabled are in the bottom 20 per cent of income, 50 per cent of the children of lone parents are in the bottom 20 per cent of income.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my second question? Is it true that the 60 to 65 age group affected by the court's decision can backdate their claims three years, and how many have been paid?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. Anybody who has come into the system as a result of the eligibility age for men changing from 65 to 60 is entitled to backdated payments. However, in the normal course of events, the right to an automatic payment expires at the end of March. I shall write to the noble Lord about the figures on a yearly basis. We estimate that there may be 20,000 to 25,000—perhaps a few more—still outstanding, but it is difficult to pay because many of those men between 60 and 65 are in work and are not receiving the state pension, so we have no national insurance records of their eligibility or records of where they are working. It is a question of records, not entitlement. Any pensioner is paid automatically, but we have to encourage active claims coming to us from men between 60 and 65, because they are not in the state national insurance system for that purpose.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

Press Complaints Commission

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the working of the Press Complaints Commission.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while the Government are currently satisfied with the workings of the Press Complaints Commission, we recognise that, as with any regulatory system, there may always be room for improvement. For this reason, the Government continue to monitor closely the effectiveness of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory system. We would not hesitate to suggest improvements if appropriate.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can the noble Baroness explain why, of all institutions in this country, the press is almost uniquely allowed self-regulation in contrast to other institutions for example, the House of Commons, where freedom of speech is equally important? Despite many warnings, is it not clear that many dubious practices are continuing, such as payments to witnesses in criminal proceedings, as highlighted by the Lord Chancellor, contempt of court, as recently highlighted by the Attorney-General, payment to criminals like Ronnie Biggs, and entrapment as in the case of the Countess of Wessex?
	Is it not clear that eminent journalists, such as Mr Kelner of the Independent, or, dare I say, Mr Rusbridger of the Guardian, are right in saying that there are too many cosy deals between the commission and the tabloids? What we want is not conciliation or arbitration; it is adjudication by a genuinely independent body.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lord, as I am sure is the case with the Opposition, the Government support the principle of a free and responsible press as the cornerstone of our democracy. Newspapers are, and should remain, completely independent of government. It is for the press to decide what, and what not, to publish. The Government are committed to preserving that freedom. However, the Government also continue to believe that effective self-regulation, with a code of practice overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, is preferable to any statutory measure. Nevertheless, as with any regulatory system, there may be room for improvement. The Government certainly expect the press to abide by the rules and the commitments set out in the code of practice.

Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if they run true to form, the press response to the excellent Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will be to "thcream an'thcream" like Violet Elizabeth Bott about press freedom? Has the noble Baroness read the research by Ian Hargreaves and James Thomas entitled New News, Old News from the University of Cardiff, which shows a catastrophic level of public trust in either the truth or the impartiality of our national press? Any other industry incurring that kind of public contempt would display some sense of urgency as regards putting its house in order in terms of ethics and standards. That is totally absent in our press.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not seen the research mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should very much like to receive a copy of it, and, indeed, read it. I am certainly aware of a growing lack of trust among the public in the accuracy of our newspapers and in some other aspects of the way they operate. It is for the press to take note of that public concern and to respond accordingly. That must be the position. Where they have legitimate grounds to do so, it must also be the case that members of the public take their complaints to the Press Complaints Commission where they will be properly investigated.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that what is really needed is a completely independent press commission, that is, one independent of the press barons or their representatives?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is a difficult question—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Blackstone: I believe there is a strong case for involving editors in the Press Complaints Commission. They are a minority. Lay members form the majority on the commission. It is the task of those editors on the commission to take most seriously the issues that are investigated. Where complaints are found to be justified, it is their task to return to the newspaper industry—not just their own newspapers, but to collective discussions in the industry—to ensure that any decisions made by the PCC are acted on.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, noble Lords are inclined to ask: what are the Government afraid of in relation to the PCC? Does not the Minister agree with Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent, that the injustices of cheque-book journalism—for example, in the case of Alex Ferguson, or that of Peter Foster—highlight the need for tougher regulation?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are a whole range of issues on which there is possible need for tougher regulation. As I said in my initial Answer, the Government are carefully monitoring the way that the PCC operates. I have in mind issues about contempt of court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is undertaking a review on that very issue at present; I believe it will be completed in December. So it is not true to suggest that the Government are in some way afraid of taking action to investigate whether there is a need for a change in the present arrangements.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, are the Government aware that one does not have to be one of their supporters to feel contempt for the vicious hate campaign carried out by the Daily Mail against the Blairs, especially Mrs Blair? The Daily Mail campaign has shown little regard for accuracy or for the truth. It reeks of hypocrisy and smug self-satisfaction. When a newspaper makes false allegations, should not an independent press commission be empowered, of its own accord, to investigate such matters?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord about the "vicious hate campaign" carried out by the Daily Mail in relation to Cherie Blair. However, for the time being, we have to stick to the current arrangements whereby it is up to any party who feels that he has been maltreated by our newspaper industry to make a complaint to the PCC. It would become extremely difficult to undertake regulation if it were carried out by third parties.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. A soft question always "turneth away wrath".

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a director of the Spectator Ltd. Does the Minister consider that there is something faintly undignified, and, to many people, rather unsatisfactory, about a group of politicians attacking the press for not telling the truth, or for even coming out with unworthy stories? Powers exist to pursue the press in cases such as those for contempt of court. We should all welcome it if they were more vigorously used. Should not politicians remember that when they attack the press they are also attacking those who buy the newspapers with such keenness? As for the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that he gets the job he is looking for somewhere.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may not be aware of the fact that over 90 per cent of the complaints received by the PCC are from ordinary members of the public. It is right to say that newspapers should be accurate, as should politicians.

Queen's Counsel

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to continue to make appointments of Queen's Counsel.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes, my Lords.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, given that the office of Queen's Counsel involves no public duties, is there any justification whatever for a government Minister and a government department being involved in the appointment process at all? If appointments to the rank of Queen's Counsel are to continue—and that, in itself, is highly questionable—should not the appointment be made by the senior judiciary and the profession?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor is the head of the judiciary, and the judiciary, along with many others, is consulted on the appointment of Queen's Counsel. So the Lord Chancellor is at the end of a line of process that includes independent civil servants, the judiciary, the legal profession, and now lay assessors. Every stage in the process is open to the closest scrutiny by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It is the duty of the Lord Chancellor to ensure that applicants are treated impartially and on their individual merits without reference to connections, allegiances, or contacts that are irrelevant to the award of Silk.
	I repeat to your Lordships, as I have previously, that I have not excluded the possibility of an appointments commission to take over some part of these processes. But there are powerful arguments why a quango would not command greater public confidence than the existing system. Moreover, if the function were to be handed over to the profession, I very much doubt whether that would command public confidence or whether, on the contrary, it would be thought that the profession was feathering its own nest by the creation of an excessive number of Queen's Counsel.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—

Lord Renton: My Lords—

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, could we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell?

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it was a very modest contribution from a practising member of the Bar of some years. Would the noble and learned Lord accept that his assessment of this situation is certainly wholly acceptable to me?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I could have no better ally.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is there any truth in the oft-repeated allegation that the selection system is based on secret negotiations?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I think that the phrase is "secret soundings". The allegation that judicial and QC appointments rest on secret soundings is false, but it is constantly repeated, presumably because of an unshakeable affection for the expression regardless of its inaccuracy. The names of all consultees are known; there is no secret about them. What individual consultees say about individual applicants is kept confidential. However, that is a common feature of practically all appointments systems; otherwise assessments would not be full and frank.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Renton: My Lords—

Lord Ackner: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it must be the turn of the Cross Benches, I think.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise that there is a strange conflict in this area? On the one hand, as I understand it, public funds are to be used rarely in employing QCs. On the other hand, as I understand it, the fee that an applicant must pay to apply to become a QC is going to be at least doubled this year.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the state, as any other purchaser of legal services, is entitled to be sparing in the hiring of the services of Queen's Counsel—who represent at any one time only about 10 per cent of the Bar. On the other hand, I see no objection whatever to applicants for the rank of Queen's Counsel paying a fee that represents overall full costs recovery for the highly expensive scheme administered. This year, for example, in the current Silk round, we have consulted nearly 500 automatic consultees and nearly 1,500 nominated consultees, making approximately 2,000 in total. It is a massive exercise. There are no quotas, but recent experience shows that anything from about 70 to slightly more than 100 may succeed when 400 to 500 apply, and all deserve to have the merit of their applications scrupulously assessed. The Government took the view that a fee of £720 was fair since it represented, as I just said, overall full costs recovery.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor consider it more appropriate for the ultimate decision to be made by a very powerful Cabinet Minister, nominally the head of the judiciary, rather than by the Lord Chief Justice, who does not exercise any political power and could not then even be thought of as having any appearance of political patronage?

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I do not think that that question goes any further than the supplementary question which I answered from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

NHS: Cancelled Operations

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to reduce the number of cancelled operations in the National Health Service.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have invested £8.5 million in the current financial year to help reduce the number of cancelled operations and ensure that good practice in operating theatres is implemented throughout the National Health Service.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is not the high number of cancelled operations simply part of a wider picture of falling productivity in the health service? Is the Minister aware that, over the three years to last April, the NHS budget increased by more than 21 per cent, yet, during the same period, NHS activity increased by only 1.6 per cent and the number of hospital admissions actually decreased? Do those figures cause the Minister any concern? Should we not question whether all the extra money promised for the health service will succeed in treating a commensurately large number of extra patients?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, because it is not possible to measure NHS performance purely by hospital activity—although, by 2001–02, the number of finished consultant episodes had increased by 11 per cent compared with 1997–98. Surely the noble Earl will recognise that there has been a great expansion in services. Better and more expensive drugs can improve the quality of life and keep people out of hospital, and an expansion in primary care also is desirable. We need to paint a rounded picture to see the results of the extra expenditure. I am confident that we will meet the targets, reduce waiting, increase capacity and produce the type of health service the public want.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, are not the real figures actually far worse than those published? It appears that only operations cancelled on the day are included in the figures, and that patients put on standby are not included. Whatever happened to the troubleshooting managers who the NHS announced in February and said were capable of tackling the problem?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have taken action to improve the situation in relation to cancelled operations. The £8.5 million programme to which I referred has been accompanied by direct intervention and action in individual hospitals to help reorganise their processes. The figures I have seen for the first two quarters of the current financial year indicate that, by the end of the financial year, compared with last year, there will be a reduction in the number of cancelled operations.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what are the most frequent reasons for cancellations? Is it non-availability of operating theatres or other reasons?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my information is that although the pressure on theatre time may be a contributing factor, there are a number of reasons for cancelled operations, including bed availability and shortage of theatre staff. There are also emergency pressures on theatres whereby patients scheduled for routine treatment are asked to wait because of an emergency case. The real solution to these problems is to increase capacity in the health service. That is why we are seeing such a large increase in the number of nurses employed, up to 40,000 more since 1997; an increase in bed numbers; and an increase in staff training places. All those actions will enable the health service to increase capacity and, therefore, to deal with the problem most effectively.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister say to what extent the shortage of staffed intensive care beds is contributing to the cancellation of very major surgery in patients who are extremely ill with life-threatening conditions?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not possible for me to quantify how many operations might have been cancelled because of a particular problem with a critical care bed in a particular hospital. What I can tell the noble Baroness is that, just as we have seen an increase in the past three years—for the first time in 20 years—in the number of general and acute beds, we have also seen a big increase in the number of critical care beds. Using as a baseline 15th January 2000, there were 2,362 critical beds; by July 2002, the number had increased to 3,070.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the causes of cancelled operations are multiple and vary from place to place, in many instances surgeons find themselves unable to operate because of a lack of time or space in theatres? Is not this whole matter compounded by the difficulty in discharging patients into the community where they would be better off?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as regards the discharge of patients, we shall introduce a Bill to incentivise local authorities to do what is required to ensure that when a patient has finished his treatment and is ready to return to the community the relevant local authority makes the necessary arrangements. There are instances of pressures with regard to theatre use but that matter is being tackled. I believe that a more flexible working pattern on the part of staff in the NHS would enable those theatres to be used more effectively.

Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growing body of anecdotal evidence that the money to which he referred in his reply to the first supplementary question of my noble friend on the Front Bench is simply not coming out of the other end of the pipe into which it is poured? Will the Minister reassure me as regards the following matter? In the spring I heard at a meeting held by people running cancer units in Greater London that they had not received the money that was promised to them. I also heard at a meeting of people running hospices that they had not received the extra money promised to them in September. Does the Minister recognise that that makes it difficult for me to accept what he said?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we monitor carefully the two matters to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that the improvements that we wanted to see take place in cancer services are taking place. As regards the general resource question, as I think I have already said, one cannot judge the use of resources simply in terms of the number of hospital admissions. Resources are being used, for example, to increase drug budgets. That enables people to receive better treatment and often means that they do not have to go into hospital. We are also using resources more effectively by increasing the use of GPs and primary care. Overall, the NHS is treating more patients more quickly and more effectively. That is the pathway to an improved and excellent NHS.

Licensing Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Schedule 1.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 108, line 33, after "facilities" insert "other than a person who is a performer in relation to the entertainment or a person representing such performers in dealings with the promoters of the entertainment"

Baroness Buscombe: This amendment aims to try to plug a number of loopholes which the drafting of the Bill has left open. It is my understanding that as the Bill stands any payment made by the promoter to the performers of music at a private event is enough to trigger the regulation of an event. By that rationale, an event within a private home, or a private rehearsal by musicians who receive payment, becomes a licensable activity. While it is clearly important to try to give a comprehensive definition of the provision of regulated entertainment, there are also cases where regulation imposes needless bureaucracy and causes confusion and complication for those taking part in the entertainment, most particularly for professional musicians.
	I hope that the Government will clarify the issue of payment and explain their thinking on that aspect of the Bill. We on these Benches have turned to lawyers with expertise in licensing law. Their view of the situation with the Bill as currently drafted is clear. They state that they understand that the Bill's wording not only captures private events where band leaders, for example, are hired to organise live music, but also children's entertainers, for example, Cocoa the Clown. This amendment is essential to ensure that simply because a musician is paid to arrange live music, which may include several different bands, solo performers and so on, private events such as wedding receptions or bar mitzvahs do not become illegal unless licensed. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment which stands also in my name. Is it the intention—as we believe—that an individual could trigger the question of whether an activity is licensable? There appears to be confusion and concern about the matter, especially among those who organise private parties.

Lord Skelmersdale: Does not the matter go wider than that? The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is an opera lover. She will have attended performances given by, for example, Diva Opera, in private houses and other locations which may or may not have raised money for charitable purposes. At Question Time hospices were discussed. Is it the intention to cover those events? If so, I, and I am sure, various noble friends would consider that that is quite wrong.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the first schedule requires that certain conditions must be met for entertainment to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment under the Bill. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 provides:
	"The first condition is that the entertainment or entertainment facilities are provided—
	(a) to any extent for members of the public or a section of the public,
	(b) exclusively for members of a club which is a qualifying club in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment, or for members of such a club and their guests, or
	(c) in any case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b), for consideration and with a view to profit".
	Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 1 states:
	"For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c)"—
	that is, other than for members of the public or members of a club or their guests—
	"entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, only to be regarded as provided for consideration if any charge—
	(a) is made by or on behalf of any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment or those facilities, and
	(b) is paid by or on behalf of some or all of the persons for whom that entertainment is, or those facilities are, provided".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a wider point about private parties to which I should like to respond if an amendment were tabled on that subject. However, the measure we are discussing does not concern that point. The amendment would exempt instances where a charge was made by or on behalf of someone organising the management of the facility if they were a performer or a person representing performers dealing with the promoters of the entertainment. But, as I said, the exemption would apply only where the entertainment or facilities were not provided to members of the public or members of a club and their guests.
	Taking the amendment literally, I do not see why the safety concerns of the public would be reduced simply because the performer, or someone representing performers, was the person organising or managing the entertainment facilities to whom a charge was paid. Why should a premises owned by a musician, for example—because that is what the measure would mean—be exempt from a requirement when a normal business person would not? I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is saying but that is not what her amendment says.

Lord Redesdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, his explanation gave the impression that a private performer, for example, concerned with musical dance, would have to license his or her own home. If the entertainer in question offered children's entertainment, would the relevant child's home have to be licensed premises under the Bill?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course not. I thought that I had made that entirely clear. Private parties become licensable only if the holder of the party charges those for whom an entertainment is provided and only if the purpose of the party is the provision of entertainment. Incidental entertainment provided even when the entertainer is paid as part of a private party is not licensable. Certainly, anything where no charge is made for admission is not licensable. Mozart and Haydn spent most of their lives being paid to do work that was not licensable. Count Esterhazy's soirees at Eisenstadt, to which he did not charge admission as far as I know but which did include performances conducted by Joseph Haydn, would not have been licensable.

Lord Skelmersdale: That is all very well, because nobody is paying, but I still have not had an answer to my charitable problem.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Would the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, be good enough to repeat his question?

Lord Skelmersdale: I asked whether, for example, the owners of a private house who employed the Diva Opera to raise money for a local hospice would need a licence for the premises. The people who came to such an event would be paying, although the profits would go to charity. Under the definition and the explanation that the Minister has so far given, that would be a licensable activity. I, for one, think that that is quite wrong.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we dealt with that question when we debated Amendment No. 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Yes, if a charge were made for admission to a private house, whether it was for private profit or charity, the same issues of public safety and public nuisance would arise. To that extent, it would still be licensable. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for it to be licensable, other than simply subject to the serving of a notice, there would have to be five events. Each of those events could last up to three days in the course of one calendar year, and there would have to be more than 500 people involved. There are not many of those.

Lord Avebury: Could the Minister say what would happen if, at such a private party, no charge was made for admission but a collection was taken up on behalf of a charity, for example?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was here when I answered that question before. That would not be a charge for admission and would not make it licensable.

Baroness Buscombe: Looking around the Chamber, there seem to be concerns on two levels. First, I am concerned that the Minister's explanation does not fit my questions. Secondly, there is consternation among Members of the Committee that such events to which we have referred, such as the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, attract the need for a licence. There is concern on those two levels.
	As I said to noble Lords, we have consulted licensing lawyers with expertise in these matters, and we believe that there is a problem with this part of the Bill. We believe that our amendment clarifies the situation, but clearly in the view of the Minister it does not. I shall read his comments carefully in Hansard, but I fear that we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 109, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).

Baroness Buscombe: The amendment is designed to probe further what is meant by "indoor sporting event" for the purposes of the Bill. I am sure that most of us are clear that it would include a gymnastics competition in a sports hall, a swimming competition or an indoor bowling competition, but will the Minister tell us how far the definition of "sporting event" goes? It would be helpful to have that explained clearly.
	Would the definition include a regular amateur club darts competition, for example? Would it include a skittles, bridge or whist competition in a church or village hall or in private premises, designed to raise money for a good cause? On some definitions, that would certainly be sporting. It would certainly be an entertainment. There would probably be a charge if the reason was to raise money for a good cause. There would certainly be an audience, and a large number of people might come and go in the course of an evening. Do the Government envisage that every small, local, casual competition of that sort would be subject to the full rigours of the law?
	On a separate aspect, what is constituted by "indoor"? Does an event have to take place within a permanent structure? What happens in the case—possible today and increasingly likely in future—when a stadium has a retractable roof? Would that be caught by the provisions? What would happen if a sporting event started as an open-air event and was concluded under cover because of rain or snow?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Buscombe: Well, they are all good questions, as I hope Members of the Committee will agree.
	Would that example be covered by any regulations that would apply to the relevant subsection? Would an operator have to apply for permission to close a structure? Does the definition include a marquee near a sporting event, or a tented structure? What about the circumstances, which are increasingly common in some events, in which an awning or cover is placed over some parts of an otherwise open-air structure to shelter the sporting entertainers?
	Those may seem small issues, but they are part of everyday life throughout the country, and it is important that we should be clear at the outset how far and in what ways the Government intend the provisions to bite. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: The amendment also appears in my name. The Explanatory Notes helpfully describe sporting events:
	"For the purposes of this Bill, sport is defined as any contest in which physical skill is the main factor. For example, tennis would be covered by the definition. However, a game of chess contested publicly would not".
	However, the notes do not refer to darts. That may seem an amusing factor, but darts is one game often played in pubs. The Sports Council does not recognise darts, and it is not an Olympic event as yet. Often, of course, darts is covered as a licensable activity in large competitions through the sale of alcohol. However, will the Minister give some definition? Although the definition of sport in paragraph 14 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 uses the word "includes", darts is an issue that many councils will ask about.

Lord Skelmersdale: I must declare an interest as chairman of the House of Lords bridge group. I understand from the very helpful Explanatory Notes that bridge would not normally be covered. However, there is surely a bit of a muddle here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the Bill does not really explain what "sport" means. It clearly covers more than contact sports and clearly means sports that people pay to view specifically. Darts in a pub is incidental, and the pub would have to be licensed anyway, so it seems to me that it would not be a factor in the equation.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has answered one of the difficult points for me. I am not a darts fanatic, but I have seen the game played from time to time, and I cannot remember any circumstance in which I have seen a dart thrown when drink was not in fairly close proximity. The issue with regard to a licence would certainly be in play, although I imagine that there could be some circumstances when that was not the case. The noble Lord referred to darts in a pub; we are obviously talking about licensable premises in that case, which would be covered by the licence for which it had applied.
	The noble Lord rightly said that not all sports were contact sports, but sport is sport, and bridge is not a sport. I think that we can agree on the two ends of the definition. We are seeking to indicate that there are a number of indoor sporting events with a fixed roof. I shall refer to the intermittent contraption or sliding roof in a moment. Let us deal with those events that are definitively indoors. They are currently covered by the requirements because indoor arenas can have large crowds. Indoor arenas have substantial capacities for sports such as cycling and athletics, to say nothing of boxing.
	We do not intend to exclude any entertainment covered by the current licensing regime. Such events are covered because there is a public interest in terms of health and safety on such occasions. Indoor sporting events can attract sizeable crowds and generate an atmosphere of excitement owing to the competitive nature of the activities provided. Bridge does not quite fit into that category, which is not to say—I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—that bridge is not competitive. Although it engenders emotions among onlookers, it does not produce quite the same response or involve such large numbers as the sporting events we seek to cover with this provision. We believe that the events should continue to be licensed because only regulation through such a system can ensure public safety and prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder. To exclude indoor sporting events without proper justification would lead to serious problems. After all, a number of issues are raised in relation to external sporting events although the arenas are not very different from the indoor arenas we seek to cover. We shall come to a relevant amendment later. The amendments were grouped at one point but they have been decoupled. The amendment I have in mind relates to retractable roofs. I shall reserve my salient remarks until we reach that amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: It would help many of us if the Bill referred to incidental activities. The reason for licensing is for the primary activity, not for darts, bridge or whatever. The licence would be granted on that basis. I have not yet understood whether a supplementary licence would be needed in relation to a park, for example, if a pub suddenly decided to put on a wrestling match for which entry was charged.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We should expect the pub to ensure that it had a licence that covered its normal practice—the sale of liquor—and one for entertainment if it had facilities for wrestling or boxing, if it was that sort of pub. There are some. Under the present regime, it would have to apply and give guarantees of public safety with regard to such provision. We are not seeking to change that regime in any way.

Lord Redesdale: I want to pursue the questions raised in relation to darts. The Minister said that a pub with a darts board would be covered by the licence for the premises. However, if it did not have an entertainment licence, does that mean it would have to apply for a variation to add an entertainment licence under the guidelines?

Lord Davies of Oldham: No. We are concerned with events that generate a significant audience involving public safety and health and different from the normal licensing operation governing the pub. When there is a facility for a boxing match, an additional licence is required. The noble Lord discussed darts. There might be three or four people around who take a passing interest in the darts match. That would not raise a specific consideration.

Lord Redesdale: I raised that example because, although darts can be played by as few as three people, I have been to many pubs, particularly in rural areas, that stage darts competitions that can attract hundreds of people. That is a completely different area and would probably fall under the auspices of the conditions as described by the noble Lord.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I underestimate the drawing power of darts in terms of an audience. As the noble Lord said, pubs with darts boards can stage competitions to which the public come—they do so in addition to drinking in the pub. That would be an event and increased numbers of people would come to the pub to see it. That would be covered by our proposal.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: The pubs in my part of the world have weekly darts competitions. All local pubs do; they even hold darts leagues.

Lord Avebury: I want to pursue the comments of my noble friend and to declare a past interest, from some 35 or 40 years ago, as chairman of the Melbourne and district darts league in south Derbyshire. It had the sort of league that my noble friend mentioned. Weekly competitions were played in all the pubs throughout the Melbourne area. They were very popular events, attended by reasonably substantial numbers of people. We were not unique. Similar leagues, as my noble friend said, exist in many parts of the country. They are very popular events. People go especially to pubs to attend them and visit other pubs, of which they are not normally habitues, to follow their team.
	Darts is not the only game of its kind played in pubs. I point out what appears to be an anomaly. I was also many years ago—even more years ago than when I was chairman of the darts league—a member of the second Aunt Sally team at the Plasterer's Arms in Oxford. That extremely popular game is played in the open air. The Bill appears to require that entertainment at darts league matches would be licensable but that Aunt Sally matches, which were of a similar nature—all the pubs in the Oxford area played in a league—would not be subject to licensing. What is the logic in that, considering that both events are of a sporting nature? One of them happens to take place in the open air and the other does not, but both are closely associated with pubs.

Lord Skelmersdale: It would help us all to bring realism into this debate; otherwise, we shall be discussing the Bill in Committee for about 10 days, which would be in nobody's interests. The fact surely is—as stated several times today and at Second Reading when, unfortunately, I was not able to be present—that if the darts playing is incidental to the activity for which the licence was granted, it is not covered by an extra licence condition. If, however, people pay not for beer but to attend the darts match, surely it is covered. Is that not the end of the problem?

Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their overwhelming support for my question about darts competitions. These questions are in themselves small but they are symbolic of the fact that the Bill overall lacks clarity. Similar questions have been raised today seeking more clarity in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, at this rate we will be here far longer than is necessary.
	I urge the Government to think again about the Bill's wording. We on this side of the Chamber are certain about our interpretation of the Bill, although that interpretation appears to be rather different from the Government's. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has been in touch with us expressing deep concern about what is meant in relation to indoor sporting events. It asks for clarification about whether parents watching their children might be deemed spectators in terms of public entertainment.
	Good questions continue to be raised. I understand that the Government's view is that the Bill answers those questions, but we assure them that it does not. I urge the Government to look again at this and earlier amendments. I shall read carefully what they said in Hansard and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 109, line 12, after "boxing" insert ", martial arts"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. These amendments are both designed to probe the difficult issue of what might be called "violent entertainments". They also raise a specific concern relating to martial arts.
	I understand why the Government have listed separately in the schedule boxing and wrestling entertainments. We have all seen the way in which so-called "wrestling" now seeks to incite the audience to anger against one or other participant. Often—sometimes as part of a fake entertainment but sometimes, sadly, in real life—people from the audience become involved in scuffles, or worse, with the wrestlers. That is sometimes an intended consequence of the way that the entertainment is presented. Equally, we can all recall appalling scenes of disorder at some boxing matches. In recent times, there have been cases of mass brawls involving horrific injuries to members of the audience. Usually that has happened when members of the audience have been inflamed with drink.
	Does the listing of boxing and wrestling in this way as a separate category mean that the Government envisage that licensing authorities may be able to impose stricter regimes on these kinds of competition? If so, can the Minister clarify where in the Act or in the regulations these powers will be explicitly set out? If not, will she consider this matter carefully? Will she also consider whether different rules might apply in the case of so-called "unlicensed" boxing, which poses particular threats to the health of participants and has frequently been associated with drink-related disorder?
	Both amendments also seek to add to the definition of "boxing" and "wrestling" other so-called "martial arts". They offer different ways of achieving the same objective. Many noble Lords will know that so-called "sports", such as kick-boxing and similar activities, are growing in popularity alongside more established martial arts, such as karate. No one can doubt that kick-boxing, tae-kwan-do and other sports can involve considerable violence and could act as an incitement to audiences. Therefore, will Ministers consider writing clearly on to the face of the Bill the fact that such martial arts will come under the same rigorous control as boxing and wrestling, in particular, where drink is involved? I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may raise one question in relation to this amendment, although it could well have been raised with regard to any amendments to paragraph 2 of the schedule. I hope that this is not unfair; if it is, the Minister will no doubt write to me. The point referred to by many noble Lords concerned cases where entertainment takes place in the presence of an audience and—this is the point—is provided for the purpose of entertaining an audience or for purposes which include the purpose of entertaining that audience. I believe that it would put many of our minds at rest if we had a little guidance on what is meant by,
	"or for purposes which include the purpose",
	of entertaining the audience. We have already had the example of young people taking part in a sporting competition with their parents present. If the parents are there to see their children perform in a competition—for example, in an indoor badminton competition, although it could be any other type of competition—would that be taken as falling within paragraph 2 as the parents would be there for purposes which include the purpose of entertaining that audience? It seems to me that the matter can be argued either way. However, if, either now or later, the Minister could assure us on that point, I believe that it would take out of purview a great many of the more marginal prospects about which people are worried.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I turn, first, to the closing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I shall certainly write to him as I believe that my immediate answer to the point that he raised will probably be inadequate. The concept behind an "audience", or possibly a paying audience, is rather more objective than where parents go along to see, and support, their children. They do form an audience because they are watching, but their participation in the event is not quite that of the public audience, which we are seeking to identify and safeguard in relation to these issues. The noble Lord may consider that response to be less than precise and I shall write to him before the next stage of the Bill.
	In relation to the general matter of the martial arts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly identified, we know that boxing and wrestling and their audiences present a significant issue with regard to public safety. As the noble Baroness said, the relationship between wrestling and its audience is particularly engaging, and its showmanship can engage the audience very directly. But, as has been known for many decades, boxing also engages passions. From time to time, boxing bouts have aroused as much vigour in the audience as in those participating in the ring—in some cases, rather more than occurs in the ring.
	In this measure we are seeking to ensure that boxing and wrestling fall within the necessary requirements of licensing. However, I am having some difficulty in accepting the noble Baroness's depiction of the martial arts. I am not sure that I am totally familiar with every single one of them, but I do not believe that martial arts normally set out to engage the audience in quite the same way as do wrestling or boxing.

Lord Addington: Does the noble Lord agree that boxing is growing in popularity but that it is very under-regulated at present? The noble Baroness is correct in that.

Lord Skelmersdale: Would it help the Minister to take up my suggestion of using the expression "contact sports", which would cover all these matters?

Lord Davies of Oldham: That is, of course, a helpful suggestion. The noble Lord is always helpful. But this is a deregulation measure. We are not looking for additional elements to bring within the framework of the regulation. The Opposition Front Benches are raising an issue about martial arts which we believe has occasioned very little public discourse. We have received no representations from the sport. No one who has attended martial arts performances has said, "By heavens, do you know just how dangerous or what a threat to public health this is?". We have received no representations on the matter. If noble Lords have received some, no doubt they will convey them to us.
	At present, the martial arts are a fairly limited sport in terms of public presentation. They are conducted within a framework which gives us no cause for anxiety. Therefore, I resist the amendments on the grounds that I am not seeking to include sports, activities or pursuits but am seeking simply to continue with our process of deregulation.

Baroness Buscombe: I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. While we would not look for ways to include other sports just for the fun of it, we have a serious purpose in tabling these amendments. As I said, the martial arts can attract audiences where there will be a possibility of violence, and perhaps considerable violence where drink is involved. In some ways, martial arts may be seen as a minority sport. In that case, it is hard for us to understand—perhaps that is the reasoning—why sports such as wrestling and boxing should be included but martial arts excluded. There seems to be discrimination in favour of minority sports, such as the martial arts.
	It is not our purpose to add regulation where it is not necessary. Indeed, as I shall say when we debate the next amendment, our concern is that the Government are regulating where it is entirely unnecessary, including areas such as carol singing. There is seriousness in our purpose. As Her Majesty's Opposition it is important for us to show all those individuals and organisations who are watching closely the passage of the Bill our will and our wish carefully to scrutinise it. We need to show the outside world that we are serious in our purpose. On that basis I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 93.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 109, line 13, leave out paragraph (e).

Baroness Buscombe: There has already been much talk today about exceptions to the definition of "regulated entertainment". Amendment No. 11 draws attention to yet another area where the categories seem to be so broad as to verge on the ridiculous. On page 109, line 13, we learn that entertainment includes,
	"a performance of live music".
	I wonder whether any noble Lords have had the pleasure of watching their children sing in a school nativity play? That activity would, in future, be licensable. It appears that we would also need a licence to go carol singing. Such an all-encompassing definition as the one that is offered in paragraph (e) demands greater clarification. I am sure that there are keen musicians up and down the country who fear that the Bill, as it stands, will force restrictions on activities which they see as a basic human right. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When we started our consideration of Schedule 1, I hope that I made clear the basis on which Schedule 1 is drafted. The principle is that the first concern should be for public safety and the avoidance of public nuisance. In the licensing objectives, there is also the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of harm to children. They should be included in the appropriate places. But I hope that at that stage I explained that if one is concerned with public safety and with the avoidance of public nuisance, it does not make much difference, as regards music, whether it is live or recorded.
	Recorded music can be quiet and cause few problems to anyone. Live music, on the other hand, can be extremely loud and offensive to some people. Anyone who has been to the Wembley Arena or to the Glastonbury Festival surely would not say that they, being live music, should be exempt from the licensing procedures. Indeed—I hope the Committee will not mind my saying so—anyone who has been to a State banquet will have heard the bagpipers going around the table twice very loudly indeed. That is all right in St George's Hall and in Buckingham Palace, but it would not be much fun if one lived next door.
	What we are concerned with is the public safety and avoidance of public nuisance aspects.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise. But there seems to be a theme to some of the Minister's answers that any live music will bring about disorder. I know that some of the original regulations about live music were brought in because it caused disorder in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some of the noble Lord's comments indicate that live music is a cause of disorder and of public nuisance. I did not wish to speak to this amendment but the noble Lord's comments have forced me to. Can the Minister tell us what evidence he has for the assertion that he makes?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have made no such assertion. I am saying that there is no distinction to be made, from the point of view of public safety or public nuisance, between live and recorded music. To single out live music for the purpose of the amendment is to misunderstand both the purpose of the Bill in the way it is drafted and the effect that it has.
	It is a widespread misunderstanding but it is just wrong. As a result of the Bill, not only will there be no further impositions on live musicians, but there will be huge new opportunities for live musicians. The Bill does not discriminate against live music in any way. Let us take as an example the pubs, which after all much of the Bill is about. At the moment one has the "two in a bar" rule. One must get special permission for more than two live musicians in a bar.
	Under the Bill as drafted the pub licensee will get a licence for the sale of alcohol. At the same time, without any difficulty and without extra charge, and subject only to conditions about noise and capacity levels, he will be able to get a music licence. In that sense, the possibility of live music being available in pubs and other places where alcohol is being sold will be greater rather than less. Regulation is being reduced not increased.
	I simply do not believe that the distinction between live music and recorded music that is made in the amendment helps in any way. Of course that is not saying that all live music is damaging. I gave examples—perhaps extreme examples—of Glastonbury and the Wembley Arena. Of course a small folk group in a pub will not cause the kind of problems that Wembley or Glastonbury can cause. But it should not make a difference whether it is two, one or three people taking part in such a group.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, introduced the amendment by talking about carol singers and nativity plays. Singing in nativity plays is not going to be licensable. In most cases those activities will come within the exemption in paragraph 9 as incidental to a religious meeting. In any case, they will be for the family and friends of children and will not be for members of the public. Neither of those circumstances will be licensable. Carol singers going door-to-door, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, or taking part in a religious service are not licensable. People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by a premises licence or a temporary event notice. That is hardly different from the present situation. In any case, a temporary event notice just says that there will be carol singers. That is all. It does not require any more than that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister cannot be allowed to get away with saying that there will be no real difference from carol singing at the moment. Nor, with respect, should he be allowed to get away with the notion that there is nothing to getting one of these notices. Getting the forms, filling them in, returning them 10 days before the event and paying the fee is a series of bureaucratic impediments that will put off a great many people who are only too happy now to sing in Liverpool Street station or wherever. The Minister misjudges the feeling of the House if he believes that this combination of bureaucratic hurdles is of no significance.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us talk about that aspect; I am certainly happy to do so; but I have given the assurances sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about both Nativity concerts and carol singers. I insist that the regime that we propose is enormously easier for live music and would not be helped by the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: I appreciate the Minister's reasoning as to why, on this occasion, my noble friend Lady Buscombe is wrong, but he made the most amazing assertion in his answer. He said that there was no difference to him between live and recorded music in this regard. Why, then, are they separated in the Bill?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are both there; they are separated, presumably, for the sake of completeness. There is a much greater difference in terms of public nuisance between amplified and unamplified music than there is between live and recorded music.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am now deeply confused. I heard the Minister say that, to take carol singing as an example, it is perfectly all right to go carol singing in certain places but not in others. With regard to the need for a premises licence, there must be people up and down the country who are about innocently to go out on carol singing sprees and may enter supermarkets—where I am sure that they would be welcome—or railway stations, not realising that they would be in difficulty if they did not have a licence to cover that activity. I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale when he said that I was wrong in that regard.
	The Minister said that school Nativity plays would be exempt from the need for a licence if, as was suggested, they were incidental to a religious meeting. That returns us to an argument raised earlier: most Nativity plays attract all sorts of people, not just immediate family and friends. How far and how wide does the definition of friends extend?
	In essence, we seek clarification from the Government. We said on Second Reading that we support the Bill in principle, but we passionately believe that, in a number of areas, it deserves and demands improvement. Otherwise, to return to the reference made this morning to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the Bill will be a licence for lawyers.
	I urge the Government to reconsider what we have said on this and previous amendments. We are in Committee; there is an opportunity to revisit the issues on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 109, line 14, leave out "playing" and insert "performance"

Lord Redesdale: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 21 and 25, which are grouped with it. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 25, which sums up the meat of our objections to the Bill.
	I have campaigned against the "two in a bar" rule, and I do not intend to introduce grandfather rights for the "two in a bar" rule into the Bill—although in a way, that might be helpful to the Bill as drafted. I understand—and, to a degree support—the Government's objective of making entertainment licences an easily accessible form of variation of a licence.
	However, I have concerns about such variation of licence. The Minister said that varying the licence to include an entertainment licence will be easy. However, will licensing authorities reject variations if people then seek to add an entertainment licence? That is a matter of considerable concern. If someone applies for a variation of licence, the licensing authority has the opportunity either to reject the variation or to impose conditions. Pubs may be worried that if they apply for an entertainment licence they may be rejected unless a vast amount of work is undertaken at the pub for live music to be performed there—because of health and safety considerations, which have been cited in the past in the granting of public entertainment licences.
	That is one reason why we were so keen to remove the "two in a bar" rule. Amendment No. 25 is therefore an attempt to allow live, unamplified music to take place outside the confines of the Bill. That is important, especially as the Bill is promoted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because we are discussing a vast amount of folk music. Folk music is a form of culture in this country and is often passed on by word of mouth in pubs. Reducing people's ability to hear folk music played could lead to its decline and extinction. I think especially of areas such as Tyneside, where much traditional folk music has been passed down through word of mouth in pubs.
	We are therefore attempting through Amendment No. 25 to exempt unamplified music. As the Minister said, amplified music can be extremely loud and intrusive. However, unamplified music is rarely complained against. The Noise Abatement Society, which most keenly opposes any noise pollution, states that 81 per cent of noise complaints about pubs and bars are due to noisy people outside. Most of the rest are due to recorded music and noisy machinery. The United Kingdom Noise Association states that noise complaints about live music are relatively rarely lodged. There are more complaints about amplified pre-recorded music, which is exempt under the Bill.
	I find it anathema that, under the Bill, while pubs can happily play canned music—most pubs do—they cannot host unamplified live music of a type that is so important to the cultural diversity of our country through folk clubs, which often meet in pubs. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on all the amendments to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. It would be otiose to repeat what he said. The Bill appears to be clamping down on entertainment while liberalising the drinking of alcohol—a strange juxtaposition.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 21, which would remove from Paragraph 7, which exempts incidental music, the word "recorded", so that the exemption would apply to incidental music whether recorded or live. I agree with what the Minister said about the previous amendment, when he was adamantly disinclined to distinguish between live and recorded music, and said that they should be treated the same. What is good for the goose in that amendment should be good for the gander in this.

Lord Bridges: Perhaps I may make a brief suggestion about the amendments and some of those that we discussed earlier. It concerns the concept of live music as a discrete and recognisable commodity. Live music varies enormously between the chap crooning with a friend over a ukelele in a bar and the "Hallelujah Chorus". The Government have got into difficulty by providing such precise definitions that do not translate into the world in which we live. Perhaps they will reflect on that as we consider the Bill further.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is entirely justified in reminding me of what I said on the last amendment; I was very deliberate. The difference between amplified and unamplified music is more important than the difference between live and recorded music.
	The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 21 and to paragraph 7 of Part 2 of the schedule. The point is that we are referring to recorded music when it is incidental to other purposes, rather than being the purpose itself. Generally speaking, I hope, live music is not incidental. I have been to parties at which pathetic string quartets of music students play in the corner and no one pays the faintest attention. People clap politely when they finish. That is as deplorable, in its way, as Muzak is. However, my personal views should not come into it. Generally speaking, background music may be offensive aesthetically. But it is not offensive in public safety or public nuisance terms. That is why there is an exemption in paragraph 7.
	The fundamental point is the one I have made—clearly, not to adequate effect—on several groups of amendments. The licensing regime that we propose is related to the effect of the entertainment, not to its origin. When a distinction is made between amplified and unamplified or live and recorded, we must consider the effect. There can be quiet—relatively quiet—amplified music, and there can be loud unamplified music. A brass band can be very loud, and I gave the example of bagpipes. A symphony orchestra is loud. I would not care to live next to the "1812 Overture", even if—especially if—a live orchestra was playing it.
	If we stick to the fundamental principle that we are licensing the effect for the sake of public safety and the avoidance of public nuisance, we will not get into the trouble that the amendments would get us into. The amendments would not help musicians or live music and are not in the public interest.

Lord Avebury: I would like the Minister to clarify something that I find mysterious. Under paragraph 7, it will be permissible for stores, hotels and so on to play the revolting Muzak that most customers loathe. I cannot understand, from a marketing point of view, why they do it. If they had live music in the foyer, for example, would that be regarded as incidental to the other purposes of the establishment? They hope to attract people to stay in the hotel or to eat or drink there. Railway stations, already referred to, are there to persuade people to travel on trains. The position is similar for any other termini. Where is the logic in saying that there can be Muzak in all those places but not a string quartet or carol singers?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am in danger of being swayed by my aesthetic judgments, rather than by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. People go to a railway station to travel by train; they go to a shop to buy things. If the criterion used is whether the music is incidental, it may be that we should think again about the adequate distinction being whether the music is live or recorded. I say that because Amendment No. 21 is in the group.

Lord Redesdale: I am rather interested by that change of tack. The Minister is talking about incidental music. Surely, folk musicians playing in the corner of a pub are incidental to the licensing criteria of the pub. If they are playing for their own amusement, and it is incidental that they are doing so, music is being performed.
	Noise abatement, noise pollution and health and safety are important issues. However, I find it amazing that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is promoting the Bill and should be promoting live music as a cultural aspect of our life, is more interested in the health and safety aspects. The health and safety aspects are already covered by the premises licence and the facilities licence.
	If the Government are prepared to change their view on the incidental playing of music in, say, hospitals, railway stations or anywhere else, that is fantastic. However, I must bring to the Minister's attention something about which he might get a few letters. He mentioned his personal aesthetic view that it is sad that people play in a corner and are never listened to. Many music students make a living or support their studies by providing that service. That is an important point. I am sure that the music schools will put him right on it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not objecting to their playing; I am objecting to the fact that no one listens.

Lord Redesdale: Of course, that is a different aspect.
	The incidental nature of the music is one aspect of the matter. On this side of the House, we are concerned about our cultural heritage of folk music and the ability of people to play it in local pubs so long as they do not infringe health and safety or noise pollution rules. Those rules should be covered by the premises licence criteria anyway; the Bill is too restrictive.
	The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill was de-regulation. We believe that also. If it is, and if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to take seriously its responsibility to promote culture, the issue must be addressed. I say that because we will bring the matter back at the next stage. I hope that the Government will consider changing their position. We will press the issue hard at the next stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 109, line 14, at end insert "to the public"

Lord Redesdale: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 28 deals with the issue of play rehearsals. The issue has already been covered and the Minister has, I think, spoken to it. However, I would like some reassurance that if the rehearsal of a play was not for the benefit of the public, it would not be covered by an entertainment licence. I say that because the issue has direct financial consequences for production companies that are rehearsing. There can be a difference in the fee they are charged, according to whether the premises are licensed. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendments, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added.
	There is huge scope for confusion between the reference to,
	"any playing of recorded music"
	and paragraph 7, which provides an exemption for the playing of recorded music,
	"to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity".
	That begs the question of when recorded music is deemed to be incidental. I was pleased by the Minister's response to the previous group of amendments and will read that part of Hansard extremely carefully tomorrow.
	The question of when music is,
	"incidental to some other activity"
	could make an enormous difference to the gulf that exists between how we on this side of the House and in other parts of the House interpret the Bill and how the Government interpret it. Will businesses risk being in breach of their operating plan if they misinterpret their recorded music as incidental and do not include it when submitting their application to the licensing authority?
	I turn to Amendment No. 28. It is unnecessary to regulate a rehearsal without an audience. Surely, if it has an audience, it is caught anyway.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 lists the descriptions of activities that are entertainments, including,
	"any playing of recorded music".
	Amendment No. 13 proposes inserting at the end the words "to the public". Any playing of recorded music to the public which is not exempt under paragraph 7—because it is incidental to other activities and satisfies all the conditions in the schedule—is clearly a licensable activity. If the intention is to exempt the playing of recorded music which is not to the public, I am baffled. I cannot envisage a situation where recorded music would be played for consideration or with a view to profit where neither the public nor members or guests of a club were present and the other conditions of the schedule were satisfied.
	As regards Amendment No. 28, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, recognises that I have already given the assurance for which he asked. Rehearsals are specifically mentioned in that paragraph because we want to make it clear that a rehearsal to which an audience is invited—such as a press performance or a dress rehearsal—should be licensed because of concerns for the protection of the public. People attending would expect to be protected as they would be for a proper performance. But I can give the assurance that closed rehearsals need not be licensed.

Lord Redesdale: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 109, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) a performance of comedy which is not a play,"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. This is a small point—a probing amendment. Both comedy—the obvious example being stand-up comedy—and hypnotism shows, such as those staged by Paul McKenna, are forms of performance put on for the purposes of entertainment and take place in the presence of an audience. Therefore, as with the amendment that we sought to include in relation to martial arts, we see no reason why they should not be included within the definition of entertainment in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: The amendments seek to bring within regulated entertainment as defined in Schedule 1 comedy routines—I assume mainly stand-up comedy—and stage hypnotism. I shall deal with hypnotism first—not a subject on which I have a great deal of expertise. The Hypnotism Act 1952 apparently already controls and regulates performances of hypnotism at places licensed for public entertainment and at other places. Therefore, it would duplicate those provisions to regulate it under this Bill. I should perhaps point out that hypnotism and, I assume, hypnotism shows, give rise to issues which go beyond the licensing objectives of the Bill, but there are obviously health matters at issue. It remains the case that many people are concerned about the effects of hypnotism on certain vulnerable groups. It is right that it is addressed separately by its own legislation and we would not want to change that.
	I am rather puzzled why the noble Baroness wants to add stand-up comedians to the list in Schedule 1. Laughter is not normally excessively noisy. Therefore I believe that the proposal would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. In addition, there are problems with defining, in practical terms, what constitutes stand-up comedy. How does one define whether someone is funny or not? We might say that there is a good deal of stand-up comedy in this House, but people would probably disagree about the extent to which some noble Lords are being comic and some are being serious. Therefore, it probably would not be appropriate or make much sense to extend the coverage of the regime in this way, and certainly not as far as hypnotism is concerned.
	In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, which I recognise was a probing amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply, especially in relation to hypnotism. I am grateful to her for informing us of the 1952 Act. It was a probing amendment. It sought to give clarity to the Bill and send signals to those in the business of hypnotism that while they are exempt from the Bill, they are not exempt in every which-way. In relation to stand-up comedy—for example, a performance of comedy which is not a play—the purpose of a probing amendment is to highlight the fact that there is an opportunity perhaps for individuals or groups to circumvent the Bill by saying that whatever performance they provide, it will be stand-up comedy as opposed to the performance of a play.
	I hear what the Minister has said and I do not want to detain the Committee on this point. But it is important to show that many areas are not covered in the Bill and that there are questions beyond your Lordships' House as to what is included in the term "entertainment". On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 109, line 17, at end insert—
	"(i) a playing of a programme included in a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42),"

Baroness Buscombe: Schedule 1 contains a number of definitions relating to entertainment. The various descriptions of entertainment are to be found in paragraph 2 which include,
	"an exhibition of a film",
	and,
	"any playing of recorded music".
	Curiously, entertainment, for the purposes of the Bill, does not include television. We doubt that the reason is that television is no longer entertaining, but we cannot think of any good reason why television should not be included. The televising of live sporting events on large-screen televisions on licensed premises is a frequent occurrence. Quite often a considerable amount of alcohol is consumed at those events. They attract large crowds and are frequently the source of disorder. Indeed, the potential for disorder from such an event could be greater than the potential for disorder from the exhibition of a film.
	Similarly, we find it curious that any playing of recorded music is within the definition of entertainment, but not the playing of a radio programme even if that radio programme consists only of recorded music. We believe that it would be appropriate for television and radio to be included within the definition of entertainment in paragraph 2 of the schedule. We are not saying for a moment that events involving television or radio should be banned or be subject to onerous conditions. What we are saying is that there should be a licence for such events so that if there is likely to be an adverse effect on the promotion of the licensing objectives or such an event would undermine the crime prevention objective, appropriate steps can be taken by the licensing authority. Those steps may be minimal but at the very least it should be open to the licensing authority to take those steps. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment, especially as it could involve the showing of football matches close to grounds where football is being played. I understand that there are other provisions under which the police can control such activities. However, this seems to be an easy measure. One of the major problems of crowd control at many sporting events is not within grounds but outside them.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is a deregulatory Bill and Amendment No. 17 would increase regulation. We have listed several types of entertainment and are providing regulation for those. But these entertainments in themselves are noisy or could constitute public nuisance. Everyone has television in their own home. It cannot be turned up beyond a certain level without it becoming impossible to hear. We are regulating where we have to; namely, for noisy entertainments, late-night refreshment, fire safety grounds, and so forth. But the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are saying that the very showing of television—especially the showing of football matches—could give rise to disorder, particularly where alcohol is being sold. I do not deny that. But the solution is not licensing the showing of television. Televisions are on in the background in pubs all the time, I am sorry to say—with the admirable and notable exception of JD Wetherspoon, which is not the brewery of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—and we would not want to license them merely because on occasion football is shown and may give rise to disorder.
	The solution to disorder arising from the showing of television is by imposing conditions on alcohol licences, not by increasing the regulation of the showing of television itself.

Baroness Buscombe: I am looking at a comment sent to us by ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is deeply concerned by the exemption. It states, quite rightly, that very often these events are accompanied by drinks promotions, which attract large crowds and are frequently the source of disorder. We entirely agree with the Government's stated aim of being deregulatory, but they seem to be deregulatory as it suits. On the one hand, we find that carol singing in a supermarket will need a licence, but, on the other, enormous pubs, with huge screens, drinks promotions and hundreds of people in a crowd near a sports stadium, can make as much noise as they like without the need for a licence. This seems to be entirely inconsistent.
	We urge the Government to consider what we have said and the concerns raised by noble Lords. The Musicians Union, as well as ACPO and others, has raised concerns in this regard. We are at the Committee stage and we can ask the Government to think again on this issue. We are not seeking to regulate where it is not necessary, but we are concerned about inconsistency.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness decides what she is going to do, I have listened carefully to the point she made about ACPO. I repeat our strong belief that the correct way to deal with this issue is by placing conditions on a licence and ensuring that if a licensee permits disorder and noise nuisance on his premises he will face a review of his licence, and it will therefore be in his interests to maintain an orderly public house. However, in view of what ACPO has stated, we shall talk to it again about this matter. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here.

Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. ACPO has a deep concern. As to the point the Minister made about conditions on the licence, that is a possibility. But the Explanatory Notes dealing with such conditions exist in a framework for guidance which will not be published until the spring, way beyond the time for scrutiny of the Bill in this House. It is a matter to which we shall return later in the Committee stage. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said in this regard and welcome the fact that he will meet again with ACPO on this point. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]

Lord Monson: I had not realised that Amendment No. 21 was grouped with an earlier amendment. If I am not out of order, I should like to add my plea to that of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to the Government to accept Amendment No. 21 when it comes up at the next stage.
	The other day I was in the lobby of a London hotel, having battled my way through Livingstonian traffic jams.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment cannot be moved. The proposer is not present. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will have to find another way of making his point, perhaps on another amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: I hesitate to correct the Minister, but if he looks at The Companion to the Standing Orders he will find that once an amendment is on the Marshalled List it is the property of the Committee and not of an individual peer.

Lord Monson: In that case, perhaps I may complete my short intervention.
	I was in the lobby of a large London hotel, having battled my way through traffic, waiting for a guest. I heard some marvellous, soothing, attractive, beautiful music coming from somewhere. I went round the corner to investigate, and there was an attractive lady harpist plucking on her harp, giving pleasure to all those present and offending no one. It is perfectly preposterous that a licence should be needed for that kind of music. The case rests there.

[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 110, line 32, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Small premises
	The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if—
	(a) it is undertaken on premises on which no more than 250 persons are present;
	(b) no charge is made for entry; and
	(c) the provision of the entertainment ceases no later than 11 p.m."

Lord Redesdale: The Minister has made much of deregulation, and this is an extremely good piece of deregulation. The amendment seeks to promote mainly folk singing. I know that some Members of the Government find folk singing anathema and have said so in the press—I am sure that they were very unfair comments and probably misquoted—but I am sure that if tickets to folk concerts were sent to those people they would be only too glad to accept. Or perhaps not.
	This is a probing amendment to which we may return. We believe that it meets the criteria for allowing folk singers and other small musical groups to practise and perform among themselves in licensed premises. The amendment introduces the criteria that there should be no more than 250 people present; that there should be no charge for entry, and therefore raves would not fall into this category; and, in order that we do not again receive the threat that it should be treated as a rave, the entertainment should cease at 11 o'clock at night, the start time of entertainment of the rave variety.
	The amendment seeks to ensure that traditional folk music can take place in an acceptable environment. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. It seeks to maintain and promote the proliferation of music. One of our major problems at the moment is that through the PEL system which the Bill seeks to remove—I quite understand the Minister's view that that is a good thing and may lead to many more venues opening up—the number of venues providing for folk music, jazz and other types of entertainment is presently 5 per cent of premises, which is unacceptable.
	Music should be a part of everyday life. Indeed, one of the reasons for tabling the amendment is that we believe that some of these regulations could infringe on human rights legislation. I know that the Minister may say that that is debatable, but I am not sure that a case taken to the European Court of Human Rights under the relevant articles would not be successful. Given that the Minister has signed to say that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, that is an extremely serious point.
	The aim of the amendment—and, indeed, of the previous amendment—is to allow the flourishing of a cultural renaissance in folk music. I understand that certain Ministers would not like that to happen, but I hope that this Minister, when considering the amendment, will take forward the point we are making and perhaps even accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Luke and I have added our names, and I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. We believe that the amendment helps to address many of the questions that have been raised. It reflects the Government's clarification that spontaneous activities are supposed to be free from regulation. In a sense, it provides a measure of de minimis. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it attempts to meet the requirements of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—Article 10 in particular: the right to perform such music being an intrinsic part of an individual's right to freedom of expression. This is a good amendment. It would help to alleviate an enormous amount of concern, and it would reduce the work of lawyers. We therefore hope that the Government will seriously consider supporting it.

Lord Colwyn: I, too, support the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, restricted it to folk musicians. I feel that it should be wider and take in jazz musicians. Many young jazz musicians in this country have nowhere to play. To cut down on their ability to perform would severely restrict a good British art form.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It depends on the kind of jazz that is being played, does it not? It depends on whether it is West Coast or somewhat louder.
	This is a well-meaning amendment. I well understand the frustrations that have given rise to it. We have agreed that the "two in a bar" rule is a nonsense. It is a nonsense to suppose that two musicians using amplification who are presently exempt from restrictions will cause less disturbance than a quintet playing at a tea dance. There is a whole range, both in terms of numbers of musicians and in terms of the kind of instruments they are playing, or indeed in terms of their voices.
	But this amendment, like the others, goes against the way in which we are approaching regulation here. We say that, whatever the origin of the music, the concerns should be for public safety and the prevention of public nuisance. That can happen whether there are 250 people present, or more, or fewer than that. I am sorry to say that public nuisance could be caused before 11 o'clock. What about music being played next door to where a mother is seeking to put her child to bed at seven o'clock?
	Given the way in which the amendment is drafted, a full orchestra could be performing in premises with a capacity of fewer than 250 people. It means that a small pub, for example, would have to employ people to count. It could cover a free rave involving 250 people. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that it does not cover raves, but not all impose an admission charge: they make money on the sale of drinks.
	The fact that music is presented commercially on a regular basis to boost sales of alcohol would be irrelevant. Pubs are commercial enterprises. They do not present music for altruistic reasons. We license many activities because the profit motive can make people careless about safety and the nuisance caused to others. The fact that no formal charge is made does not alter that. As I said, the 11 p.m. finishing time suggested in the amendment does not help mothers who want to get their children to sleep. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to introduce an exemption of this kind. It is better to rely on what the effect of the entertainment is, as we do in the Bill, rather than to introduce new criteria of this kind.
	As to the human rights issue, Article 10 provides, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, for the right of freedom of expression. But residents are entitled to the right to enjoy their possessions in peace. That is the balance that must be struck. The European Convention on Human Rights—notoriously, I almost said—recognises that this balance needs to be maintained, which is why there are always disputes about what it means.

Lord Redesdale: It is unfortunate that the Minister has taken the line that he has. He talked about disturbance. There are many venues throughout the country which hold regular events in regard to which there is no complaint. The Minister said that it was possible to put an orchestra into small premises. I cannot think why anyone would want to do that. Yes, you can stick 31 jazz players in a cupboard, but that is a ridiculous concept.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not if they are all the size of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn!

Lord Redesdale: Indeed. As a former member of the Parliamentary Rugby Club, one would hope so. However, the issue is that many venues are already covered by health and safety regulations. Noise abatement is already one of the considerations that is undertaken. If a pub plays music, those noise considerations are already covered. So the issue of disturbance is already dealt with.
	If disturbance is covered already, there can be no counter-argument under the convention. If no one is being disturbed, the counter-argument to the first argument about right of expression does not apply. It has been suggested that someone might try to bypass these rules. But as the noble Lord has pointed out on numerous occasions and will no doubt continue to point out, there are both new and existing regulations in terms of police powers, council noise abatement orders and all kinds of other regulations. If all these are in place, the argument about disturbance is unfortunate. This provision will lead to the destruction of a cultural form of expression—namely, jazz, folk music and many other forms of music.
	I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider the rather hard line that he has taken. This is an issue to which we shall return at the next stage of the Bill, which may well leave this House containing such an amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 110, line 32, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Educational and social establishments
	The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if it is undertaken on the premises of—
	(a) an educational establishment for purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment;
	(b) a prison for purposes incidental to the activities of the prison;
	(c) a hospital for purposes incidental to the activities of the hospital; or
	(d) a museum or public gallery for purposes incidental to the activities of the museum or public gallery."

Baroness Buscombe: The amendment seeks to provide exemptions to educational and social establishments for the provision of entertainment.
	We propose that performances in certain educational and social establishments should be unregulated—a point to which we referred in earlier debates. While some may argue that providing exemptions to the licensing of entertainment would leave loopholes in the system, we believe that an insistence on including in the Bill the establishments and social institutions which we have sought to exclude is over-regulatory.
	It is over-regulatory to insist that people cannot perform a play or even rehearse one without paying a fee for a licence. Since such establishments would be likely to host more than five such entertainments a year, a full licence will be required. Our amendment, however, seeks to protect social establishments from incurring these extra costs.
	It is a recurring problem in the Bill that one type of legislation is imposed to fit all circumstances. It seems abundantly clear that entirely different considerations arise for a school play than they do in relation to, say, a public performance in a pub. We have heard what the Minister has said regarding concern for public safety and public nuisance, regardless of the origin. But we urge the Government to think carefully about the effect that the Bill will have on educational and social establishments. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I particularly support the provision to exclude hospitals. Live music in hospitals, as performed in some London hospitals, has been shown to be extremely beneficial in patient recovery. It has also been shown to be extremely helpful in staff retention. There is good evidence in several studies that that has happened.
	Incidental music in museums and galleries could be seen as extremely beneficial to visitors, creating a mood that canned music often fails to achieve. It is an excellent amendment.

Lord Avebury: I also support the amendment, particuarly with regard to prisons. A couple of years ago, the board of visitors at Brixton prison organised a visit by the National Theatre, which put on performances with prisoners as actors. It invited many local people and friends of the prison to attend the performance and raised a substantial sum of money for Macmillan Cancer Relief.
	Surely such an activity is incidental to the purposes of a prison, which is to enable prisoners to lead a good and useful life, as rule 1 of the prison rules states. What could be more enhancing of a prisoner's self-esteem and ability to cope with a variety of situations than taking part in the live performance of a play with distinguished actors from the National Theatre who were giving their services free? It would be a frightful nuisance for prisons if, on top of their myriad paperwork, they needed a special licence every time an external theatre group came to engage in such activity.
	On the contrary, we should encourage entertainment provided not only by theatres but also opera companies. Recently, I heard a radio programme about a performance of the opera "Sweeney Todd", which some might think an unsuitable subject for the group of prisoners involved, who were "lifers". Nevertheless, the activity engaged them and the staff. Everyone was enthusiastic about it. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not want to discourage such activity. I hope that the Government will favour the amendment and do everything possible to encourage incidental activities that are therapeutic to the people involved.

Baroness Hanham: I declare an interest as chairman of an NHS trust. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about music in hospitals. It is becoming increasingly popular and prominent. Some organisations specifically provide music in hospitals, playing in wards and amphitheatres. It would deter them if they had to apply for a licence every time they wished to take a quartet into a ward or to provide music elsewhere in a hospital. I support the amendment, particularly that aspect.

Lord Redesdale: If a hospital needed an entertainment licence, the provision of health and safety would be an issue. But it would be difficult to say where the musical activity should take place. Incidental music for therapeutic value would have to be performed in wards or corridors. An entertainment licence may specify that it would have to be performed in an auditorium, which would contradict the purpose of using live music as a therapeutic method.

Lord Colwyn: I imagine that many museums survive only by holding evening functions. The Science Museum and the Natural History Museum host functions virtually every evening, for which they charge a lot of money. I imagine that that helps their budget a great deal. I do not have figures, but I am sure that this point should be considered.

Baroness Blackstone: Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 exempts the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities for a religious service or meeting under the requirements of the Bill. The amendment would exempt entertainment incidental to the activities of prisons, hospitals, museums or galleries where they take place on the premises of those bodies. It would also exempt activities undertaken at an educational establishment for purposes connected to that establishment.
	Entertainment is regulated under this Bill to achieve licensing objectives, not least public safety. The establishments that would be at least partially exempted through this amendment host occasions that the public can attend. For example, occasionally prisons put on plays for the public. Museums such as the Natural History Museum— the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has just mentioned museums—rent out their buildings for dinners with dancing, for example. Some schools stage commercial music concerts, as we discussed with reference to earlier groups.
	Just because events are taking place at schools, prisons, museums or hospitals does not mean that the public should not be protected. Of course they should be. Members of the Committee might argue that the activities I described are not incidental to the purposes of the establishments. I am not entirely clear about what is meant in the amendment by "incidental activities". However, if a performance is for therapeutic purposes for hospital patients and staff, it is not licensable. It is a private event. In fact, it is not incidental to the activities of the hospital. It is part of the process of helping people to get better. Similarly, a performance in a prison for the benefit of prisoners is not licensable. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about that. Prison regimes should allow such events to take place.
	A major public event attended by many people from outside is a different case. People would expect such an event to be licensed. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment. The purpose of the Bill is to try to have a coherent, unbureaucratic system, with a light touch. But it must create a level playing field between all the different bodies that might hold public events at which noise could be an issue and where the public need to be protected.
	To exclude some premises entirely from the provision while including others would not further the aim of the Bill. I hope that I have assured Members of the Committee who have spoken that, where entertainment is obviously for the benefit of patients, prisoners and other recipients of care from the institutions mentioned, or for the benefit of pupils in a school, it is not licensable.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, the vast majority of museums host many events. They already have licences and would need to continue to do so for such activity.

Lord Redesdale: Perhaps we are being pernickety about the issue because of the bad experience many premises have had with public entertainment licences in cases where only one or two members of the public have triggered issues. That might not happen if public entertainment licences cost much less.
	If staff spend their lunch hour at a performance by a small group of musicians in a ward, is the activity defined as a public or private one? Is there not a crossover at that point?

Baroness Blackstone: This is a good example of where common sense must prevail. Common sense tells me that, if people wish to use their lunch hour to listen to music being played for the benefit of patients on a ward, it is a private activity and should not therefore be licensable.

Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness talked about the performance of music in a hospital as part of the activities of the hospital. Will she extend those remarks to the provision of entertainment by schools that are designed for that purpose, particularly drama schools and music schools? Putting on performances is part of their activities. It is what they are there to do for their pupils. If somebody from outside comes to attend a performance at, for example, the Royal College of Music or the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, do those performances then become licensable?

Baroness Blackstone: If the performances are for the public, they are licensable. That is the key issue. If, on the other hand, they are done entirely privately, with students listening to students, they are not. Most conservatoires put on public concerts and would expect to have to get a licence.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. Sadly, I am disturbed by it. In a sense it confirms our worst fears. We are talking about particular institutions that we have singled out for exemptions—prisons, hospitals, educational establishments, museums and public galleries. I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to performances in prisons attended only by those directly involved with the prison. We understand that that would not attract the need for a licence. I went to a performance of "The Threepenny Opera" a couple of years ago at Winchester prison. It was a fantastic performance put on over a number of nights by prisoners working with professional actors. It was the best form of rehabilitation I have ever witnessed, giving the prisoners a feeling that they were working with the outside world and gaining confidence and self-respect. I am pleased to report that some of those prisoners are now free again and pursuing the activity of drama. That must be applauded and I applaud Winchester prison.
	I am depressed to think that such activities would attract a licence. I hear what the noble Baroness says about noise, but surely that issue would not arise for prisons and hospitals. When I went to Winchester, my family and I—particularly my children—remarked at the level of protection provided for the public. The public do not need protection. My noble friend Lady Hanham referred to the patients and staff of a hospital. What about if visitors of those patients come in and listen to the performances? An element of common sense must prevail, but, regrettably, the Bill will unquestionably cause insecurity for musicians and performers across the board about what they can and cannot do and the spontaneity with which they can perform.
	We will not divide the Committee at this stage, but given the support shown around the Chamber we will want to return to the issue on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 111, line 23, leave out "(other than" and insert "(including"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This takes us back to Amendment No. 11, to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, replied. He said he wished to save his ammunition for later. He now has a chance to fire it off.
	The amendment relates to Clause 14 in Part 3 of the Bill. The definitions of buildings have been drafted to exclude structures with roofs that may be opened or closed. The amendment would treat them as if the roof was permanently closed.
	The aim of the provision is probably the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, which is a splendid building. It is currently the only major building with a sliding roof, but it is unlikely that it will be the only building with a sliding roof over the next 25 or 30 years, which is the likely life of this legislation.
	When the roof is closed, I do not see how the stadium is any different from any other major indoor arena, such as Earl's Court, Docklands or the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. I understand that rock concerts in the latter three would fall within the provisions of the Bill, but rock concerts in the Millennium Stadium, even with a closed roof, would not. Except for the convenience of the parliamentary draftsman, who could not find a way of excluding it neatly, that does not seem logical.
	It also raises the wider issue of the position of people who live close to major rugby and football grounds. We heard much at Second Reading about late-night drinking in central London and the associated problems. Those living next to major football grounds experience some of the same problems that occur in central London; people being sick in their front gardens and worse. In these cases, not even the council will help to clear up.
	I accept that this is a difficult issue, but it is part of the general policy area covering the licensing of entertainment and the sale of alcohol. My fundamental point is that, given human ingenuity, legal tenacity and developing building techniques, if the Bill is not amended we must expect that wholly or partly movable or removable roofs will become more prevalent. In the meantime, I am not clear why a stadium that can be roofed in should have any special treatment in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the way he moved his amendment. I assure him that I said only that I would reserve my arguments for later on. I certainly did not talk about ammunition. I have not come here armed. In fact, I am seeking to disarm on this issue.
	I recognise the noble Lord's point. Of course the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is a unique sporting venue. I must emphasise that it is subject to its own safety and licensing regime, as would any other stadium of such a size that had this particular facility. I am not sure that I share the noble Lord's pessimism that we may be several decades away from getting a replica, but, as he rightly says, such stadiums will be few and far between. That is why the Millennium Stadium has a regime all its own, as would other similar stadiums. It is certainly the case that it has a development in terms of the roof which gives added protection to spectators. We realise what an enormous asset that is to the sporting facilities at Cardiff.
	In drafting the Bill's provisions, we had no desire to make such stadia subject to duplicate licensing regimes merely because "indoor" sport, when the roof is closed, could cover football or rugby played in the stadium. We therefore explicitly exempted them. Members of the Committee should rest assured that, like all such stadia, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff—and other buildings that can close their roofs in the future—are subject to strict safety regimes. I recognise the point identified by the noble Lord that this particular stadium is a mix between "closed" and "open" buildings because of this special facility. I can reassure him that there is a licensing regime in existence that controls and ensures public safety. That regime does not need to be replicated by adding further provisions to the Bill.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, and his "disarming" comments. I just wanted to ensure that we were not allowing a lacuna to develop in the Bill. In the light of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bridges: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 111, line 38, at end insert—
	"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, "music" does not include the ringing of church bells, for the purposes of this Act."

Lord Bridges: I shall begin by declaring an interest in the subject. I am a bell-ringer. I normally ring bell number four in a peal of eight at our parish church—a bell that my wife and I gave to the parish. I am also a member of the Suffolk Guild of Bellringers.
	The reason for troubling noble Lords with this subject is that, unless you are careful when engaged in bell-ringing, you can cause a certain amount of inconvenience to people living nearby. Unless we insert a provision of the kind that I suggest in this amendment, I am worried that some people who are unhappy with the noise made by the bells, or with the time at which they ring, may approach the licensing authority or take legal steps to stop the bell-ringing. I do not believe that that is the right way to set about it.
	Our church tower fell down in 1830 and was only reinstalled in 1960 with the help of many people, including assistance from the millennium bell fund. We managed to get a peal of eight bells installed again. Our bell-ringer, who was a wise and sensible person, took certain steps; for example, he made sure that the recruitment of the band covered the whole social spectrum of the village, and all ages. At the age of 75, I am one of the eldest, if not the eldest. We also took the unusual step of placing louvres with shutters attached to them in the bell chamber. Therefore, when we are practising, we close the shutters and the sound of bells ringing is not heard outside the church. In that way we have managed to gain the overwhelming support of our small community. That is what we should try to do.
	It would be helpful if we could put into the Bill the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave on Second Reading when he said that,
	"bell ringing and carol services do not require licences".—[Official Report, 26/11/02; col. 734.]
	All my modest amendment seeks to do is to insert that wording into the Bill. I trust that Members of the Committee will feel able to approve it. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: Church bell-ringing is not music that is licensable under this Bill. I can confirm what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said on Second Reading. Amendment No. 30 seeks to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, but it would be very odd if we listed in the legislation every single thing that is not licensable. Indeed, the Bill is about directly the opposite. Schedule l sets out a series of conditions that must be met before particular entertainment, or entertainment facilities, become a licensable activity. It also sets out a number of exemptions in Part 2.
	In many cases, church bell-ringing is unquestionably for the purposes of, or incidental to, a religious meeting or service. It is, therefore, without doubt exempt from licensing. When the bell-ringers are practising, there is no audience present, as would be required if it were entertainment. Practice is also not for the purposes of entertainment, as would be required. Finally, if we examine the term of "entertainment facilities", we find that the church makes no charge on the bell-ringers for the use of the bells. Whichever way you approach the issue, church bell-ringing is not licensable under the provisions of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Bridges: I listened with attention to what the noble Baroness said. I must say that I am both surprised and disappointed by her response. It seems to me that we are dealing with a very detailed Bill, which contains provisions regarding everything under the sun. I am attempting to make life simpler for the citizen, while at the same time seeking to avoid unnecessary litigation or appeals as regards the licensing authority. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider the arguments. I may have to retable the amendment at the next stage if she is unable to give me the reassurance I seek. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Provision of late night refreshment]:

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 112, line 5, leave out "5.00" and insert "7.00"

Lord Luke: This is a very straightforward amendment. Schedule 2 deals with the provision of late night refreshments and includes the definition of "late night refreshment". The late night refreshment licensing regime will operate between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., thus reflecting the existing night cafe licensing regime.
	It is generally and understandably considered that the night cafe licensing regime is there to ensure that there is some control over cafes and takeaway premises so as to prevent disturbance to local residents late in the evening. It should also be borne in mind that residents may be just as likely to be disturbed early in the morning; and, to many people, "early in the morning" means before 7 a.m.
	This amendment is intended to bring into the scope of the licensing regime premises open between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m., thus extending the scope of the regime to cover the whole of the night-time period when it is generally accepted that the majority of people sleep. I beg to move.

Lord Williamson of Horton: It seems a little strange to say it at this stage, but I think that we are at a watershed in the Bill. We have left the realm of the potential imposition of licensing on the activities of Coco the Clown, the martial arts, hypnotism and noisy renderings of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring", all covered by Schedule 1, and moved on to something much more simple—eating and drinking—which is covered in Schedule 2. That is why I am intervening now. I should like to declare an interest which applies now and for the remaining 436 amendments to which we shall come. I am a non-executive director of Whitbread plc, an extremely large hotel company and a very large owner and operator of restaurants and sports clubs. I declare that interest now as we move from entertainment more directly into the operation of hotels and restaurants.
	Rather remarkably, I can support the Government on the text of the provision. I know that the Minister will be extremely pleased by that. I have been in the Committee all day, since just after 11 a.m., and I think that this is the first time that a noble Lord has stood up and supported the Government on any aspect of the Bill. I therefore know that she will be very encouraged by my view that the Government's proposal in this amendment, on going to 5 a.m., is quite reasonable.

Baroness Hanham: I apologise for not being able to participate in the Committee's earlier proceedings, but I hope to be able to take part in the later proceedings. I declare my interest now and hope that it will apply for the duration of our debates in Committee. I am a member of a local authority, and local authorities will certainly be affected by later provisions in the Bill.
	I support the amendment. The provision will not matter very much in small villages, but it will matter very much in big urban areas with accumulations of premises operating late at night. Such accumulations could cause a disturbance. It may seem odd to say that those two hours can make a difference, but I think that they probably do. Control of premises open at that time, particularly as regards people entering and leaving them quietly, is probably important, particularly in urban areas.

Baroness Blackstone: I begin by declaring my great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, not only for supporting the Government on this amendment, but for so patiently sitting through the debate. I think that he has it right. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 provides that, between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., the provision of late night refreshment must be licensed as under the existing regime. We see no reason to extend the existing regime and thereby to extend regulation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, was in favour of our being deregulatory, but his amendment would extend regulation.
	Amendment No. 31 would extend the coverage to all premises providing late night refreshment until 7 a.m. I think that the Committee should be very careful before accepting this proposition. Our main aim is to minimise the impact of disorder and disturbance on local residents late at night. The main cause is people who have been drinking alcohol, turning up at takeaways and night cafes on their way home and making a terrific din. If we extended the regime to the early morning, after which I believe that most of those people will have gone home and tucked themselves up in bed, we would catch all kinds of early morning cafes that provide breakfast for workers.
	Members of this House may not often get up at five in the morning—we tend to get up later and work later—but many people do. I do not believe that there is a problem with regard to those premises. Therefore, it would not be right to bring them within the ambit of the Bill. I do not believe that local authorities would want that and nor would that part of the industry that provides for cafes that open in the early morning. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Avebury: The evil that the noble Baroness says that we seek to address is indeed that of some establishments catering specifically for people coming out of pubs and clubs who do not want to go home until they have eaten a burger or fries.
	Last Saturday I went to central London to have a look at the late night economy. I was interested to learn from the police, particularly those in the Charing Cross division, that up until fairly recently—I am not sure when the change was made—they experienced enormous problems with people coming out of pubs and clubs, particularly those between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square where several thousand people are being entertained at any one time, going into burger joints in that neighbourhood and causing an enormous amount of nuisance and litter which the council then had to clean up. Some of us heard about that when Councillor Simon Milton attended a meeting here sponsored by the noble Baroness. Westminster Council has to employ people who are on duty at three and four o'clock in the morning—I saw that for myself—to clean up the mess left by these mostly young people who indulge in that form of entertainment.
	However, the police have somehow managed to persuade the late night eating establishments to close at an earlier hour so that when people leave clubs—particularly when they do so between three and four o'clock in the morning—they have no option but to go home. That made an enormous difference to the amount of litter and nuisance that had to be dealt with.
	The Bill will allow drinking establishments to open much longer hours. People leaving such establishments may well want to visit the kind of completely unobjectionable refreshment establishments that cater for early morning workers who want a cup of tea and so on. If the result of allowing people to drink all night—which is what the Government's policy appears to be—is that at five, six or seven o'clock in the morning they may want to eat a burger, and we do not include any measures in the Bill to deal with that situation, we might regret that.
	I have some sympathy with the amendment. Will there be a power for the police, or the local authority as the case may be, to ensure that wherever late night licences are granted to allow people to drink, for example, until four, five or six in the morning, eating establishments will not continue to serve after that time as it is the juxtaposition of drinking and eating that causes problems? Could such a situation be avoided by including a provision in the Bill, whether it be the amendment we are discussing or some other measure? I hope that the noble Baroness will ascertain what can be done.

Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that the amendment would solve that problem. If large numbers of people wish to remain at drinking establishments all through the night, they will do so irrespective of whether we extend the schedule to cover the provision of late night refreshment up until seven in the morning. If we did so, we would catch many perfectly innocent cafes that provide breakfast for people who start work early in the morning. The noble Lord needs to raise his concerns about the general issue of late night drinking when we reach that part of the Bill.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Luke: This has been an interesting little debate. In view of the fact that we shall debate later some of the items referred to, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Luke: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 112, line 6, leave out first "hot" and insert "immediately consumable"

Lord Luke: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 35 and 37 to 60 . Of this long list, the amendments at page 112, line 11, and page 112, line 17, are the substantial ones. The remainder are consequential.
	Schedule 2 provides a novel approach as regards the type of refreshment to be provided for an establishment to come within the night cafe licensing regime. Under current legislation, at least in London, an establishment would fall within the regime if it provided "public refreshment". Different local authorities take different views as to what is meant by refreshment. Some take the view that "public refreshment" means "immediately consumable refreshment"; namely, any type of refreshment that can be enjoyed immediately without the need to prepare it at home. The schedule provides that the regime will apply to premises where "hot food" and "hot drink" are served.
	One concern is that, in order to avoid the licensing regime, premises will adapt so as to serve only cold refreshment. That may result in a proliferation of juice bars, which would be perfectly entitled to serve cold drinks and sandwiches without the need for a licence. Given that the whole purpose of the licensing regime is to ensure that licensing authorities can place proper controls over the location of late night premises and place conditions on their operation to ensure that residents are not disturbed, it is curious that the legislation provides such an obvious loophole. There is no reason to suspect that somebody drinking cold orange juice and eating a sandwich could cause less or more disturbance than someone drinking a coffee or eating a burger.
	The amendments would introduce into the regime premises in which immediately consumable food was served. A definition of "immediately consumable" is provided. Food is immediately consumable unless it has to be heated, or prepared in some other way, before consumption, or if it requires a device such as a tin opener or corkscrew to be able to open the package. The amendments would bring into the scope of the Bill not only cafes but also shops selling crisps and cold drinks.
	I turn to Amendment No. 45. Currently, premises that hold a cinema licence are not required to register as night cafes—in London, again—or suppliers of late night refreshments elsewhere, even when cinemas provide hot drinks or hot food, such as popcorn. My experience of popcorn is that it is usually no more than warm. It is understood that the purpose of the Bill is not to extend licensable activities unnecessarily. No reason has been given as to why cinemas should be required to register another activity under the Bill with the probability that new conditions of licence would be imposed. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support my noble friend on this amendment. I see what he is driving at and understand the illogicalities that he is addressing. However, I want to extend the debate beyond the London-centric implications of the amendments. I particularly want to draw the Minister's attention to the concerns of the Forecourt Stores Association and discover from her the implications of the Bill, and these amendments, for that trade. I refer to small garages, perhaps on trunk roads, that are open throughout the night and which perhaps offer food as well as an opportunity to fill up the car with petrol. I shall give an example. I set out to drive and fill up with petrol at a garage that sells coffee from a machine. I buy a cup of coffee when I pay for my petrol. In those circumstances, the owner of the forecourt shop—of the premises—will presumably need a licence because under paragraph 3(1)(a), I have been "admitted to the premises" and I do not fall within the exemptions in paragraph 3(2). Suppose, for security reasons, that the owner decides to lock the garage at night, and drink machines are placed in the forecourt. In those circumstances, as I read the Bill, I can buy Coca-Cola, which is non-alcoholic and cold, but not coffee because it is hot, and has to be licensed because it involves the supply,
	"of hot food or hot drink on or from [the] premises".
	I do not see the logic of that distinction. If the regulations apply to small forecourt garage shops outside London on trunk roads—I seek the Minister's guidance on that point—they will be very damaging. Petrol retailers are already heavily regulated in terms of the safety of the sale of petrol. They provide an important centre for village life—I do not suggest that they do so at 2 a.m. but they do so the rest of the time. We should try to find ways of making their lives easier rather than harder. I have tabled relevant amendments to Clause 173.
	How will the position of those garages, which offer incidental food and drink—hot and cold—change under the provisions of the Bill, and will the fact that they are heavily regulated be taken into account? In the mean time, I entirely support my noble friend Lord Luke in his attempt to remove the distinction between cold and hot food or beverages.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I declare an interest as a former Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster. I am delighted to have given the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, the maiden chance to support the Government during this Bill's Committee stage. I exercised discretion in that regard when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was praying in aid the noise at Wembley and Glastonbury. I could have supported him in that argument by referring to Hyde Park on behalf of my former constituents living around Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens. I erred in favour of discretion because the concerts there are a matter of controversy with the Royal Parks Agency and even the DCMS. I thought that such a reference would be unfriendly to the Government's overall position and therefore counterproductive. However, I am delighted to have given the noble Lord that opportunity.
	I rise to speak to Amendment No. 36, which stands in my name. I recognise that it is possible that my amendment may not be self-explanatory to Members of the Committee; it is just possible that it is not even self-explanatory to the Minister. One of the main problems experienced in certain parts of London is the smoking of tobacco in Shisha pipes late at night.
	To expand on that, those pipes are used by Muslims at—to give a specific example—open-air cafes along the Edgware Road, where they are serviced by waiters. Because that provision of supplies is not included in the current definitions relating to late-night refreshment, they are a potential nuisance to residents outside ordinary licensing hours. If the licence of a cafe finishes at 1 a.m., the smoking of these pipes and their servicing by waiters can continue long into the small hours with, to the annoyance of other residents, all the consequential noise of extended activity.
	I understand that a local government (miscellaneous powers) Bill is to be introduced in the other place to extend the definition to include such pipes, but that is the reason that I moved the amendment. The amendment is intended to give the power, if necessary, to a local authority to regulate this activity.

Baroness Blackstone: All premises where licensable activities are carried on will be required to operate in a way which is consistent with the four licensing objectives—that is, ensuring public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. As we know, people who have consumed excessive alcohol often seek to obtain hot food or hot drink from take-aways, fast-food outlets and late-night cafes. That can lead to disorder and disturbance and these premises should be regulated. It is therefore logical to include such establishments in the licensing regime between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
	Amendments Nos. 32 to 35, 37 to 44 and 46 to 60 seek to extend the licensing regime to include any premises, including late-opening or all-night supermarkets, which sell any food or drink products for immediate consumption between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
	Any move to bring into the regime late-night supermarkets and grocery shops selling food that can be readily eaten would be immensely bureaucratic and simply cannot be justified. Again, if the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench is in favour of trying to maintain a deregulatory regime, then I do not believe that we can justify going down this path. It would include every premises selling bread and milk late at night. I am a little surprised that the Opposition Benches would be happy to present such a policy to the retail industry, and I wonder whether they have thought through the enormous implications. I know that the retail industry would greatly object to it.
	I turn to Amendment No. 36. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, seeks to extend the definition of "late-night refreshment" to provide for the inclusion of tobacco sales. Again, I do not believe that there is a great deal of justification for the inclusion of such sales. I have not heard of premises which sell tobacco attracting drunken crowds and giving rise to disorder and disturbance. We should impose restrictions only where there is a very clear necessity to do so.
	The point of licensing night cafes is to deal with premises where people behave in a drunk or disorderly fashion. Muslims do not usually consume alcohol. Therefore, I cannot see that we need to extend the regime in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggests.
	I wonder whether we could deal with the issue of the prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages and so on when we reach the point where the Bill deals with that. I believe that amendments will be, and already have been, tabled on Clause 173.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is not a question of selling alcohol; it is a question of selling food. The Forecourt Service Association is concerned about alcohol, but in the letters that have been circulated, which I am sure the Minister's department has received, two distinct issues are raised. One is alcohol and the other is whether more regulations will be placed on an already heavily regulated sector in relation to the sale of a coffee or a sandwich to people who fill up with petrol in the middle of the night on some A-road in the country. I am happy to return to the matter, but this issue does not concern alcohol. I am driving at non-alcoholic sales which are incidental to petrol sales but in the middle of the night. Are those caught?

Baroness Blackstone: I understand that they would be caught by the amendment but not as far as the legislation is concerned. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
	On a rather different note, Amendment No. 45 seeks to exempt premises when they are used for the exhibition of films under a premises licence. That is odd. If premises already have a premises licence for the showing of films, why would not late night refreshment be covered under the same licence? Under the Bill, unlike the existing regime, all those activities can be covered by a single licence. Therefore, the terms of the amendment do not appear to make much sense. As I made clear, we do not consider that there is justification for extending the late night refreshment house regime beyond the terms in the Bill. I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Lord Skelmersdale: Throughout the day I have become more and more confused. My most recent confusion is that the noble Baroness has just said that a single licence will be required. However, we heard earlier from her noble friend Lord McIntosh how easy it was to get a supplementary licence for various events. Surely, she cannot have it both ways.

Baroness Blackstone: There must be a misunderstanding. The position is clear. Under the Bill it will be possible to get a single licence, but that licence will have to specify what it covers. I believe that that is what was meant by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.

Lord Luke: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Like many others, this amendment is a probing amendment. We seek clarity. Some of us find it rather difficult to achieve that. No doubt by the end of Committee stage we shall have a great deal more clarity than appears possible at present. In any case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 to 60 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Licensing authorities]:

Lord Grenfell: Before calling Amendment No. 61, I must advise the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments. Nos. 62 to 66.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1).

Baroness Buscombe: We now come to Part 2 of the Bill, which relates to licensing authorities. I make clear that in Amendment No. 61 and in any debate on the question that Clause 3 stand part, we are probing what the Bill proposes. We do not have any intention of wrecking the Bill. However, having said that, I wish to return to what I said at Second Reading. I said then that we were not convinced that the case had been made by the Government for this radical change of procedure from magistrates' courts to local authorities. We have nothing but praise for the magistrates who give up their time for no reward and for their clerks, without whom the magistrates' court system could not operate.
	We believe that the Government are determined to introduce this change, but we are concerned, as we have been on earlier occasions during the proceedings today, to probe the Government in relation to the evidence and the reasons for making this change. We are doing so in response to approaches from many outside organisations, including the Magistrates' Association and many publicans, who want to know why the Government are making this change.
	The Government support the evidence-based approach to drafting legislation. That being the case, we should like to have the evidence from the Minister today as to why this change is being made.
	We are confident that local authorities, controlled by elected councillors, are well placed to take on the responsibility, and in so doing represent the interests of their respective communities, but we shall want to consider carefully whether this new system will work in practice.
	Under Clause 5 each licensing authority must publish a licensing statement setting out its policy with respect to its licensing function. The licensing statement must cover a period of three years. In preparing that licensing statement the authority must consult with the police, the fire authority and various representatives of the industry in the locality and representatives of residents in its area.
	As I said at Second Reading, the difficulty that might arise is the pressure on those elected councillors. As residents all have votes, any local authority ignoring their views, one might suppose, would do so at its peril.
	There has been widespread anxiety among local authorities that the guidance described in Clause 177 may fetter their discretion to respond to local concerns. The role of residents and councils will, they fear, be diminished in the process. Conversely, industry representatives understandably fear that the process will be politicised and—again, as I said at Second Reading—that the "not in my backyard" syndrome might work unfairly against local businesses and consumer choice.
	As I have already said, we have been inundated with letters and representations from different quarters. I quote one or two publicans who are concerned about this change. One said:
	"I am concerned that, if the licence is derived from the local council, the power vested in me [as a publican] is bestowed with far less authority and far more political consideration. This alone will devalue the responsibility for the licence and its associated responsibilities".
	Another publican's concern was:
	"The magistrates have been performing the task of licensing for many years now in a fair, impartial and knowledgeable manner. Publicans do not wish to see local politics creeping into what is part of our National Heritage . . . Why do we need to change a proven system, which from what we read and hear in the media will cost over £1 billion? Who will pay for this? The poor old publican we expect".
	Further concerns have been raised time and again by the various quarters to whom I have referred. There is the question of delay and of how this will all be implemented. Also there is an important question of consistency.
	The Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, in a "dear colleague" letter dated 13th November 2002 said:
	"Existing public entertainment licensing law lays down no procedures for the processing of applications and local authorities have been left to create their own. This has produced inconsistency between one local authority area and another and uncertainty for operators".
	Surely, inconsistency will continue. Noble Lords may say that that is not a problem. Do the Government accept that there will be inconsistency across the land? If one goes into one pub, which may have a well-known name, will it have a different licensing regime in one area from that of another pub with the same name in another area?
	Different policy statements by different authorities in pursuit of their interpretation of the licensing objectives under Clause 4(2) may cause real problems, bearing in mind that one of the Bill's objectives—which we accept—is to encourage tourism and an understanding on the part of those entering this country of what they can do in a blanket manner. Will that happen in practice if local authorities have those powers and responsibilities?
	We are also concerned about the question of fees and consistency. Again, we shall return to this at much greater length later. Publicans, in particular, ask about the costs of moving the system from magistrates' courts to local authorities. A question understandably raised at length by local authorities is that of resource implications for them. Do the Government intend to transfer resources from the Lord Chancellor's Department budget to local authorities to cover the additional costs of the alcohol licensing regime currently administered by magistrates' courts? Do they intend the additional costs to be met from fees or from local council tax payers' pockets? The Bill is unclear about that.
	At the end of the day, magistrates will still need a system in place to respond to appeals—which will arise. We understand from the Bill that where there is a problem at local authority level, applicants can appeal to magistrates' courts. In that case, can magistrates' courts afford to reduce the costs and resources that they apply to the licensing system if they are to be ready and able to sit wherever and whenever necessary to consider appeals?
	Many more questions are being asked. On behalf of those asking them, we look to the Government for clarity and confirmation. For example, many magistrates feel passionately that they have a unique local knowledge of questions of crime and disorder—they are dealing with it, they are dealing with the local problem individuals and areas day to day; they have that knowledge. We therefore ask again: is it right that responsibility for the system be moved to local authorities?
	We also ask those questions and have tabled the amendments to highlight one of the most important concerns—raised at length by noble Lords at Second Reading—to which we shall return later in Committee, when we reach Clause 177. So much of the nuts and bolts of the new regime is not written into the Bill. That is why so many questions have been asked today about what are the real implications of the Bill. So much is left to what is to be called the national guidance, which at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told us will not be published until the spring. Of course the definition of "spring" allows for a broad period. My definition of spring is probably May or June, in our current climate.
	We shall return to the matter, but we are being asked to accept so much, including a radical change to the licensing system—to which we do not necessarily object, but for which we must ask for the reasons—without clarity as to how it will be administered, because that will be in the national guidance. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill, and I am glad that the noble Baroness said that it was an probing amendment and not one that she would push at this stage. It would wreck the Bill and, perhaps, give us an easier Christmas.
	The question of whether responsibility should go to local authorities or magistrates has divided us. My party has always advocated the devolution of powers to local councils. The direction that the Government are taking is the right one. However, that is not to say that the magistrates have not done an excellent job. I welcome the fact that magistrates will be the court of appeal for any decisions. That seems fit and proper.
	The amendments are the springboard for a long debate. At this time of night, I shall not do that. I shall wait for other amendments that meet our objectives. However, I have a question about one matter. I have not got my mind round it, and I have not found anybody who knows why it is in the Bill. The sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple are included in the clause, but Cambridge University has been kicked out into the cold, after centuries. Is there a particular reason why the Inner Temple and Middle Temple retain such wonderful powers?

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My noble friend raised an important point of principle that should be debated. In the country at large, it is fair that the Government's view should be on the record as part of the Committee stage of the Bill. There is a hearts and minds job still to be done. Not everyone is, by any means, convinced about the change. There are concerns about the breadth of the change and about the detail—Clause 177—as my noble friend said.
	The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—I am sorry that he is not in his place—teased me by comparing the brewery of which I am a non-executive director unfavourably with JD Wetherspoon. He should be aware that Wetherspoon's takes a tougher line than my employer does. It thinks that the Bill should be killed; they take a robust view of it. There is a hearts and minds job still to be done. It would be helpful for the Minister to put on record the philosophy. It would ease some of the issues as we go forward to further discussions and when we get to Clause 177.

Lord Williamson of Horton: This is a central part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, did well to draw attention to the importance of the issues. We need the maximum clarification, and I support her view that the more we can learn about the nuts and bolts, the better. The fees issue will become more important when we get further on with the discussion and people calculate the fees that, they think, will fall on them. It will be important to get more clarity on those issues.
	It is a matter of balance which way to go. I thought about it for a long time, and I did not have an immediate view. On balance, I take the view that the Government have done the right thing in moving to local authorities, for the wider reasons that have been advanced by, for example, the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. In the longer term, it is right that those with responsibilities for the affairs of our citizens at local level should also be responsible for this part of the regulation of premises and people concerned with the provision of alcohol.
	I support the approach, but it is a balanced issue. The more that we know about the reasoning, the better it would be for those of us who have taken that view.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I echo the commendation given by my noble friend Lord Redesdale to the role and history of the magistracy vis-a-vis licensing, which are wholly honourable and effective. On the democracy issue, I think that it works well in allowing local people to understand the system and being able to make objections and have them heard in an impartial manner that has public confidence.
	I make only two brief points, which are not novel. My first is to ensure that impartiality is maintained. For example, the Lord Chancellor strongly advised magistrates who are also councillors not to seek election to licensing panels. Effectively, we are throwing the whole of the council system into the heart of the licensing process in a quasi judicial way. I am interested to know whether the Government have concerns about that aspect of the new regime.
	My second point is that there will be a huge amount of extra work for councillors. They will want to do the job effectively and properly. These days they are already burdened with work. Again, it is an issue which gives rise to real concern. Does the Minister have anything to say on the matter?

Lord Cobbold: The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to combine the licensing of premises with the existing responsibilities of licensing authorities. Amendment No. 61 suggests that one should ask what would happen to the existing licensing powers of the licensing authorities. Would they have to be transferred?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, introduced her amendment as a probing amendment. As she reflected, and other noble Lords supported her, this clause goes to the heart of the Bill. Therefore, it would be a wrecking amendment if it were pursued with force. However, as a probing amendment it gives a chance to engage further in the debate we had at Second Reading, and, it is to be hoped, meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, suggested. Outside, there are those who still need to be convinced about the wisdom of this move. We recognise that. It would be strange if we introduced a change to the licensing regime, a transfer from an extremely reputable body, the magistrates—to whom, rightly, tribute has been paid today for their licensing work—without explanation. I share in those commendations.
	However, we see the advantages of bringing the whole of licensing under one regime. The local authorities do not lack experience as regards licensing and they will have additional functions as a result of this measure. However, we are consolidating under one body with the advantages that I believe the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Redesdale, reflected. We are transferring to licensing authorities the advantage of local accountability, which is an important role in local life.
	I want to emphasise that local government's long experience in other functions relating to licensing, such as planning, have been part of the warp and weft of local life for a long time. The transfer will now create a more transparent and consistent licensing regime. In the Bill we shall ensure that the functions are discharged openly in the public interest. Local authorities have already managed the majority of the licensing functions in relation to entertainment and late-night refreshment. The effect of the amendment would make all our arrangements inoperable.
	I recognise the strength of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in regard to consistency. I am not sure that people who go into a pub which is part of a national chain say, "The reason I come into this pub is because there is national consistency in regard to its licensing". They may go in because there is national consistency in regard to its beer or its food, but I doubt that people go into a chain of pubs in different towns on the basis of, "Thank heavens I am going into a comparable licensing system across the board". That does not happen. So it is not the licensing aspect that is the consistency.
	It is necessary that there should be consistency and fairness in regard to licensing. That is where the guidance, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, will play such an important part. The noble Baroness chided us on the grounds that the guidance has still to be completed. I share with her an elastic notion of spring. These days, none of us seems to know what season it is. Certainly, most things in my garden do not know, but I take her point that she is pessimistic and believes that spring can be as late as May. We understand the importance of the guidance and it will be published in due course.
	It is of course the case that people have anxieties when transferring from that which is familiar to that which is different. The number of publicans I have met from time to time who have expressed their anxiety about changing national life are absolutely legion. It is not always because they believe that they have a radical standing on the other side of the bar because I am also from time to time prepared to say that not all change is absolutely essential.
	We intend to reduce red tape. We shall bring licensing regimes together in the local community and we shall safeguard its interests. Ministers have met with the British beer and pub associations and other trade organisations. They are largely content that the proposals contained in the Bill provide adequate safeguards against local authorities acting unreasonably, a point made at Second Reading and more obliquely today. A local authority's discretion will come into play only where a relevant representation has been made. The local authority will be able to impose conditions on a licence only when it is necessary to promote the licensing objectives.
	As has been rightly identified, a local authority will be obliged to publish its policy and will be answerable to the community. Does that mean that local councillors are likely to be overworked, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, indicated? In my experience, local councillors are resilient people who organise their lives extremely well. They are busy people but sometimes they bemoan the fact that certain functions are taken away from them and they exercise less power than they did in the past. Here is an opportunity for them to play an increasing part in their local communities.
	The committees are not meant to be large. Not by a very long chalk will every councillor be involved in the licensing committee; it will be those who decide that this is an area in which they wish to make a contribution. I do not underestimate the onerousness of the work but, like national democracy, local democracy is demanding and we all respond to the challenges put before us. I have no doubt that local councillors will take on this responsibility and discharge it with the experience, commitment and enthusiasm that we have grown to expect of them. They will of course be governed by guidance.
	Anxiety was expressed that local authorities will use the fee structure to advantage local taxpayers. That will not be the case. The fees charged will only defray the costs of the licensing system and they will be regulated under guidance. We do not envisage this as a revenue-raising activity for local authorities. We recognise that fees are involved in any licensing system, but the fees imposed will be only those necessary to meet the costs of carrying out the function.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Since he is addressing the important question of fees, has he any idea as to the cost that is likely to be incurred by a typical district authority, given that the demands of the Bill are very particular and will be very demanding of the bureaucrats who will have to be deployed? Have we any idea what kind of sum we are talking about?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am wrestling with the concept of a "typical authority". These are district councils, with a whole range of licensed premises in their areas. I cannot give a flip answer in terms of what this would involve for a typical authority. I am seeking to give an assurance that the fees will be strictly related to the costs involved. That is a cardinal point that we seek to emphasise, and in regard to which we seek to reassure people.
	So I am seeking to convince the Committee. I recognise that this is a significant change. Clause 3 is as important as any clause in the Bill. But we are bringing together under one authority all licensing requirements. It will reduce bureaucracy. It will make it possible for a licence application to be considered by one body, and an applicant will know where to go. There is a proper appeal to the magistrates. At Second Reading there was a slight suggestion that the Government hold magistrates in less regard than they ought. That is not so, and the fact that the appeal system involves the magistrates is proof of that. The reason for the transfer is not in any way, shape or form a matter of loss of confidence in magistrates. It relates to the advantages of bringing licensing under one set of auspices and at the same time ensuring democratic responsibility.
	There are anxieties that councillors may come under undue pressures. It is a function of councillors to come under undue pressures in all aspects of their lives. I do not under-estimate the licensing dimension. I am all too well aware that, as a local feature, it can loom quite large in terms of local complaints. But a whole swathe of local complaints are being sharply articulated by an ever more demanding electorate, and local authorities, we trust and know, respond to those demands. That is why we have the quality of councillors that we do.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing a probing amendment at this stage. I hope that I have met the major points raised. I emphasise that this is quite a significant change. It is, therefore, bound to create some anxieties outside this place. All my interests are engaged in this transformation of our licensing regime. But it is based on firm principles. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that we can move on to the more detailed amendments that follow, including one relating to the Inner Temple.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In speaking after the Minister has replied to the amendment, I give him an absolute assurance that I do not seek a response to anything that I say. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Buscombe for having provided us with the opportunity to revisit some of the issues that were raised at Second Reading. The noble Baroness who is in charge of the Bill knows that I was not able to speak at that stage. I give the Committee a categorical assurance that I am not about to make a long Second Reading speech now, but I want to resile in one regard from the alliance that I formed with the Liberal Democrats during the course of the morning.
	I do not disagree with them about the way in which the magistrates fulfil the historic regime, except that there was a problem in one regard in inner London. Magistrates might be sitting on cases in inner London where residents came to explain what it was like to be in the vicinity of the relevant licensed premises. The magistrate, who was not from inner London and had no experience of living there, would say, "If you live in London, that is what you might expect". That is not the most sensible or friendly thing to say to someone who has lived in inner London for 60 years, who was born there and has never moved from his own street.
	The regime removes that problem and transfers the issue to councillors. I rise only to say that that will be an improvement on the condition that I have just mentioned if councillors have the opportunity to exercise genuine discretion in their own areas. There are signs, in parts of the Bill that we still have to discuss, that there will be a high degree of central prescription and that the substitution of a councillor for a magistrate will not necessarily make any difference.

Lord Avebury: of the Licensing Bill. The Government have presented this debate to the effect that we are enhancing local democracy. They say that we are giving councillors—elected representatives of the people—the opportunity to make licensing decisions on their behalf. It is a smokescreen for the fact that local authorities will be given very limited discretion, as the noble Lord has just said.
	I shall refer to two sections of the framework document. First, on personal licences, it says,
	"the norm should be for the vast majority of these registrations to be automatic".
	Secondly, on page 5, on premises licences, it states that the document will,
	"comprehensively detail the Government's recommendations in terms of best practice".
	Do your Lordships, on reading that, think that local authorities will have much scope to make decisions in the best interests of their residents? Or will they be hedged about with such severe restrictions under the framework that they will get all the blame for things that happen in the neighbourhood that residents do not like, but will have no power to remedy objections made to them by local residents suffering severe hardship and distress because of the late-night economy?
	I have a letter from people who were constituents of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. The letter is from the South East Bayswater Residents' Association. They are apprehensive, to say the least, about what will occur in their area. They will go to the local authority and say, "You have been given this job. It has been taken from the magistrates and now you, our elected representatives, must deal with the nuisance and distress caused to us as a result of the licensing policy". The local authority will have to have a licensing policy. It will go through the motions of making decisions on what kinds of licences they will award and what kinds they will refuse. All the time, they will be constrained in the procrustean bed of this guidance, which will be issued after the Bill has completed its passage through this House.
	I object to that most strenuously. The Government have got into a most pernicious practice of waiting until after all the stages of the legislation in both Houses before introducing the guidance, which is the guts of any legislation. It is an insult to Parliament. We are to blame ourselves. We do not take a stronger line on it. We have allowed governments of both complexions to get away with this over the years. We have not insisted that we will not look at legislation until we see its real meaning.
	We are in grave danger of allowing the whole Bill to go through before being confronted by the restrictive clauses in the framework, which local authorities will have to operate, getting all the blame.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his reply to the amendments and his appreciation of the fact that this was intended not just as a debate. There are many beyond your Lordships' House who still need to be convinced. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, this is a hearts and minds issue. There is no question but that Her Majesty's Opposition entirely support local accountability and local democracy, but it is important to respect the fact that many outside are still not convinced of the need for the change or its desirability, and question some of the implications.
	I remain concerned about one or two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, introduced a very good point. Perhaps he would like to think of an amendment on impartiality. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said. However, it is important not only that councillors and magistrates show impartiality, but that the structure, the procedure and their behaviour is seen to be impartial if it is to be credible. As many of us know, in local communities it is often the same few public-spirited individuals who take on the very onerous and responsible roles of councillors, magistrates and school governors. The same few faces regularly appear in different situations in public service. It is therefore important to consider whether a magistrate, who may well sit on an appeal case, should also be on a licensing panel as a councillor in the same ward, district or area.
	We shall return to the question of resources, but it is important for the Government to reassure us through the scrutiny of the Bill about the continued resourcing of training for magistrates for appeals and of the administration and mechanism for appeals, which will continue, notwithstanding that the bulk of the role of the licensing system will then be placed with local councils as licensing authorities.
	Several noble Lords have raised the interesting question of consistency. I pointed out earlier that the Secretary of State has made it clear that one of the purposes of the Bill is to get rid of the problem of inconsistency between local authority areas. I am more confused now having heard the quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and how he interprets some parts of the framework guidance on the potential powers and responsibilities of local authorities. The noble Lord expressed concern about the extent to which local authorities will be restricted in their power to carry out the onerous task of ensuring that their licensing objectives within their area are achieved.
	I am holding another part of the framework guidance, which relates to the statement of licensing policies. Point 11 states:
	"This section would provide guidance on the preparation of local licensing policy statements by licensing authorities, the general principles that should underpin them and core content to which local authorities would be free to add".
	I make this point now because it would be helpful if the Minister were able to consider some of this evening's debate, particularly in relation to Clause 177, before we reach that clause so that we can better understand the breadth of powers that are being realistically given to local authorities to carry through their responsibilities properly, effectively, impartially and in a way that will reassure local residents that their interests and concerns have been covered, as well as reassuring the industry, which rightly wants to respond to a very different culture that has developed in recent years. We want flexibility on the serving of alcohol over a greater period of time.
	I refer quickly to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. If these amendments were successful, he questioned whether this would mean that the whole of the licensing system would then move from local authorities to magistrates' courts. That is certainly not the intention. However, I recall that the noble Lord referred to the question of temporary events on Second Reading, expressing a real concern as to what this will actually mean in practice. For example, there are organisations and individuals beyond this Chamber who are questioning whether local authorities will have the resources, and the capability, to respond with speed and offer licences to those who wish to stage events at reasonably short notice. These are some of the areas that we need to probe as much as possible at this stage, so as to give reassurance both within this Chamber and well beyond.
	I could continue, but many of the other issues have already been covered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for the spirit in which he has responded to our probing amendments. On balance, there seems to be support in the Committee for this move. The many individuals and organisations who have expressed concerned to us feel somewhat reassured that this move will be effective and work for them, and for the benefit of all. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Page 2, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We are dealing now with the definition of "licensing authority", which is given in Clause 3(1). There are seven categories involved, the first of which is,
	"the council of a district in England".
	My amendment, which is a probing device, seeks to delete reference to councils of a district in England, while leaving the councils of a county in England, those of a county or county borough, or of a London borough, as licensing authorities.
	I understand the reason behind putting in the words "council of a district"—namely local democracy. We are trying to get decisions as close to individual people as possible, and to have as responsive a licensing framework as possible. But this is a very significant step because of the requirement on each licensing authority to produce a statement of licensing policy. That applies, therefore, to every district council.
	I do not know how many district councils exist across the country, but I should imagine that they run into the hundreds. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they will cover a whole range of opinion. We shall, therefore, see hundreds of licensing statements, which will amount to a patchwork quilt of views on licensing. Some people may say that that is an extraordinarily good idea, because that is what we should be trying to achieve with such a quilt. It will show that the process is very responsive. However, the problem with a patchwork quilt is twofold: first, there is always the danger of regulatory arbitrage between local district councils—that is, between those who take a minimalist view or a maximalist view of the provision of alcohol. Secondly, there are those who wish to push licensed premises towards the periphery of their area, or hold it at the centre. The result—in terms of the need to keep the licensing statement under review at all times, as provided for in Clause 5(4)—could be considerable regulatory arbitrage.
	The second problem, as mentioned, is the possibility that, by having a local statement of licensing policy, we shall arouse expectations that the specified conditions will be enormously responsive. I share the concerns expressed by noble Lords that we may be setting up a system that cannot deliver those expectations. We may be arousing expectations about a system that will be wildly popular to begin with, but wildly unpopular when it proves that our intentions cannot have a practical impact.
	A patchwork quilt approach presents the industry with problems. I believe that there is an argument for creating a scale in the establishment of licensing authorities. It would provide a framework which is more comprehensive and more comprehensible to the industry and the general public. We need a clear framework that can be explained to people in the relevant area without arousing too many expectations. If we do not do that, we could undermine people's confidence in the regime we are seeking to create. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I cannot support the amendment, but I have some sympathy for the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It will be difficult, especially for some of the larger pub chains, to write guidance based on all the authorities' specifications.
	I thought that the noble Lord was going to raise another point, but he did not, perhaps because an amendment to that effect has not yet been tabled. It is nevertheless a provision that we should consider—extending local accountability down to the ward councillor level. It is currently proposed that ward councillors should not represent their own wards on licensing authorities. The point goes wide of this debate, but we shall probably return to it. Although we support such provision, we also understand that it will be difficult for local councils to fill licensing committees. There will be much debate about how large committees should be and who should sit on them. The issue will be considered at local council level and it should not be underestimated.
	The time issue was not raised in the previous debate. However, many bodies have objected to the transfer from the magistracy to local councils—I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, would deal with this point—because many pubs realise that, in some circumstances, such as when the licensee dies, the licence will have to be transferred in a hurry, perhaps over a weekend. The magistrates were able to act reasonably quickly, but local authorities may not be able to do so.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I strongly oppose the amendment. However, I liked the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that the new regime will create "regulatory arbitrage"—and a very good thing, too. However, what he calls "regulatory arbitrage" I call "local variation according to local needs". It is what old-fashioned Liberals call local democracy. I am very suspicious every time I hear a government spokesman—I am surprised to hear it from a member of the Opposition—advancing consistency as the great virtue because in these matters surely the important factor is to be sensitive to local needs which are so different as between at one end, a city centre, and, at the other, a country area.
	I echo the points made by my noble friend as regards the framework guidance. If the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, reads it—I am sure that he has it by his bath—he would derive great comfort. It states, as I said on Second Reading,
	"The Guidance . . . is a key mechanism for ensuring consistent application of licensing powers across the country".—[Official Report, 26/11/02; col. 711.]
	That worries us. The guidance goes on to say—this appears at col. 712—that the norm,
	"should be for the vast majority of these registrations to be automatic".
	The noble Lord should take great comfort from that. The guidance, again I refer to col. 712, would,
	"underline the need for . . . minimum bureaucracy in the process".
	That worries some of us.
	I come back to the underlying framework. If the guidance is subject to no parliamentary scrutiny, it could become an instrument of severe centralist control of a severely insensitive nature. We shall debate that later. Suffice to say that I—I cannot speak for anyone else—am dead opposed to the amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I am afraid that I too take a rather different view from my noble friend on this issue. If we are to accept that local authorities are the appropriate bodies to administer licensing policy, we find it hard to envisage that district councils, which are the bodies closest to local communities, should not be involved. I speak as a former district councillor. I would have been rather upset if, as an elected councillor, I was expressly excluded from such matters.
	As drafted—I realise that my noble friend tabled this as a probing amendment—the effect of the amendment would be that in any county where there were district councils there would, if the amendment were successful, be no licensing authority at all. Clearly, that cannot have been envisaged by my noble friend.
	But the upshot of the acceptance of the amendment, coupled with an amendment to transfer powers to county councils, would be a major burden falling on county councils, a responsibility on them to devise a licensing policy that might have to apply to distant and diverse communities.
	I fear that removing licensing policy from local communities would be counter-productive, arousing suspicions where none need exist. This is a major change in policy that is being proposed where all of us who are involved and who want to see it succeed will have to carry the public with us. That, I think, must involve leaving policy close to local communities with bodies that the public feel are sensitive to local conditions. I see no reason to fear that those bodies will be more obstructive of the liberalised regime that we all wish to see. I do not support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It will come as no surprise to hear that I found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, most attractive. It was a response I shall seek to emulate, but with considerably less eloquence.
	I have identified the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as the Scylla and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as the Charybdis in this debate in terms of their polarity of view with regard to the licensing regime. The Government intend to sail a safe course between two such positions. Of course we recognise that there must be some consistency with regard to licensing policy. That is why the Secretary of State will issue guidance in order that local authorities will know the parameters within which they must work. The complete devolution of power would be an odd concept in regard to licensing. As I say, guidance will be issued. But, by the same token, we shall not have the regulatory arbitrage from the centre that has been mentioned. Local communities will play their proper role in determining licensing policy locally.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we recognise the significance of one point that he made. It is important that local authorities should be able to respond quickly to emergency situations. The death of a publican might, for example, put the whole business at risk unless a speedy decision was made on reviewing the licence. Of course, we intend to have procedures, and expect local authorities to have procedures, to meet those emergencies.
	Local magistrates are volunteers, too. They put their time at the disposal of the local community and meet their obligations. We are merely saying that this obligation will be fulfilled as responsibly by local authorities as it has been by magistrates in respect of speed and effectiveness with regard to policy. The great advantage is that local authorities are democratically responsible. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is right in saying that if we accepted this amendment, we would not have any licensing authorities left at all. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, tabled this amendment with an exploratory, probing intent, such as has governed our discussions so far, so that we could advance the debate further.
	We will not have a patchwork quilt with regard to overall licensing policy, but we will have local authorities that are able to be responsive to their local communities and to develop a licensing strategy against that perspective. That is the concept behind the Bill. We need to strike a balance, because people in the industry will need some certainties about aspects of the licensing regime, irrespective of where they are in the country. That goes without saying. By the same token, we see enormous value in the ability of local representatives to play their part in the development of a local policy.
	I am merely reiterating the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which preceded mine. It is crucial to this Bill that the amendment is withdrawn, and I rely on the noble Lord to do so.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I understand the case for local democracy, which has been eloquently made. I shall withdraw the amendment and start pulling out the arrows that have been stuck into me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 2, line 40, leave out paragraph (f).

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 64 and consequential Amendments Nos. 120 and 123.
	The Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are treated as falling within the City of London for the purposes of the law relating to county courts, commissioners of the peace, justices of the peace, magistrates' courts, sheriffs, juries and connected persons. They are local government areas for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1992, but are neither principal areas nor local government areas for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972. In layman's terms, the Temples are sometimes local authorities and sometimes not.
	In the Bill, the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple are to be the licensing authorities for the areas where they act. I am not convinced that that is a good idea. I am open to persuasion, but I need persuading.
	First and foremost, one of the main purposes of the Bill is to transfer licensing powers from licensing justices to committees of democratically accountable local authorities. I am a keen supporter of the institutions of the Middle and Inner Temple, especially of the Inner Temple, which is the Bar to which I was called in 1977. However, with great respect, I could not describe either the Inner Temple or the sub-treasurer as a democratically accountable local authority.
	The Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are governed by what are called "Benchers". New Benchers are elected by the existing Benchers, not by members of the Inn or those who live or work there. They are self-perpetuating bodies answerable, in effect, only to themselves. If the main purpose of the Bill is to move licensing powers to committees of democratically accountable local authorities, that aim will not be achieved with respect to the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple, if they will be the licensing authorities.
	Furthermore, we should be told what steps the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple have taken to prepare themselves for carrying out the functions in the Bill. Do they have the expertise to prepare a statement of licensing policy? I cannot imagine that they would wish to do so. Will they really establish procedures for granting premises licences or even personal licences? I doubt it. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I can be fairly brief about this very limited pair of institutions. As the noble Baroness said, she is seeking to remove the ability of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple to act as licensing authorities. They presently enjoy that role; that relates to the question of competence, which the noble Baroness raised by asking about the preparations that they are making in this regard. We have not sought to inquire whether they are involved in any additional activities to fit them to do this function; they have done it to the satisfaction of everyone concerned to date .
	These are not arcane institutions from which privileges should be stripped. As the noble Baroness said, they are in some respects local authorities of a very limited part of central London, and only in a limited way. She will recognise that we are seeking to amalgamate all licensing functions within local authorities; that is a key part of the Bill. They are a specific and special kind of local authority. They have indicated that they wish to continue in their role. They have given no cause for dissatisfaction with the way in which they have discharged it, and we do not see any reason to alter the situation.

Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that the Minister can help me. If local authorities have objections to the non-granting of a licence, they appeal to a magistrates' court. To whom do the Inns of Court appeal?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are dealing with a very limited and specific group. I have to say to the noble Lord that I have not the faintest idea of the answer to his question! I shall write to him about it.

Baroness Buscombe: At the risk of being a little mischievous, I am sure that the Minister did not really intend to say that the Middle Temple and Inner Temple are a limited pair of institutions.
	I accept what the Minister said. If the Inns of Court have indicated that they are content to be included in the proposed way, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Page 2, line 41, after "Temple," insert—
	"( ) the University of Cambridge,"

Baroness Buscombe: We have just been discussing exceptional provisions relating to the licensing of what I may call the apex of the legal world; we now turn to the apex of the university world.
	Since time immemorial—since 1382, so the White Paper tells us—the University of Cambridge has had responsibility for policy on drinking in the university. Since the university was founded in only 1284, we can safely say that it has had it since the origin of the university. There is no evidence of which I know that Cambridge or Cambridge students are seen as the epicentre of unlicensed and unacceptable drinking in this country. I know of no complaint calling for the ending of a practice that has done no one any harm for centuries.
	It may well be that the Minister will cite a statement from the university to the effect that it no longer sees the case for this power. That would hardly be surprising in the climate of fear that has been set for our so-called elite universities since Mr Brown's outburst against Oxford. It may well even be that some in new Labour smack their lips at another blow against what they see as ancient privilege. I hate to think that anyone on Cambridge City Council would like to have a go at the university, as has been known in the past.
	This is not a big issue. However, it is symptomatic of something that is, in its way, quite big—a matter of principle. We believe that that is the apparent mania of this Government to sweep away anything that is anomalous, ancient or quaintly illogical in this country of ours. It is what I believe one of the metric martyrs referred to as the drive of the Government to narrow in on anything out of the ordinary and to homogenise, eliminate or abolish it.
	I believe that everything is done according to the wish and will to modernise, whether or not it is any good. It is all summed up in that ghastly phrase that runs like a thread through all the failures of this Government and sums up their condescending arrogance: it has no place in modern Britain. I think too well of the Minister to think that he would use such a phrase.
	What harm has this anomaly done and what harm does the Minister think it could do? What is the point? Why not leave it alone? Why not allow a little of our historic variety and colour to survive? Will the Minister not show some independence from his brief and think again? I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I rise to declare an interest as a graduate of the aforesaid university but also to plead for a touch of harmless colour. I dissented from the eloquent plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, only when she said that the drinking habits of Cambridge students were anodyne. That is not my recollection.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciated the debate on this limited area of the Bill. The reason that the University of Cambridge enjoys the privilege of being able to operate a licence is because it was granted by Richard II in 1382, which is certainly some time ago. I imagine that this week, when Cambridge scored a rather significant victory over Oxford, it probably took full advantage of the licence during the events following the rugby match.
	Although the Government recognise that the Inner and Middle Temples are rather interesting institutions for which to make provision, they do exercise a local authority role, which is the basis of the clause to which the amendment relates, whereas the University of Cambridge does not.
	I understand the democratic sensitivities of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He always extends a little colour to a point when it immediately involves his own past enjoyment of such privileges. But, for other—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I cannot let that pass. Perhaps I may ask the Minister how many members of the Cabinet will benefit from the two exemptions that he has just extolled.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I should think very few. I imagine that the number of occasions on which members of the Cabinet find the time to indulge in drinking in the Inner Temple is probably fairly limited. However, I will let that pass. I emphasise that, so far as concerns the Government, the University of Cambridge is not a local authority. This clause is central to the Bill. It seeks to bring all the licensing procedures within the framework of local authorities. Therefore, we believe that modernisation of the licensing laws should sensibly remove this rather obvious anomaly for which there is no clear current justification.

Baroness Buscombe: I am deeply disappointed by the reply given by the Minister, particularly when I had—I thought quite powerfully—referred to the need to do away with the drive for modernisation and so forth. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that there is no question that I said that the students of Cambridge were anodyne in their drinking habits. I said that there is no evidence that Cambridge students are seen as the epicentre of unlicensed and unacceptable drinking in this country, at least not to my knowledge. That does not mean to say that they do not do a lot of drinking.
	The reply was disappointing. This is a small point but, as I said, it is symbolic. I hear the Minister's comments. I could almost have written his response myself, with some regret. It was expected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that she reserves the right to return with this amendment at a later stage when there might be rather more noble Lords in the Chamber?

Baroness Buscombe: Absolutely. It is regrettable that so few noble Lords remained this evening. I wonder whether this has to do with the changes in our sitting hours, which mean, sadly, that many noble Lords leave the Chamber at an early hour on a Thursday. The noble Lord is right. We shall consider carefully whether to return on Report to a fair number of the amendments we have withdrawn tonight. I believe that there would be great support from a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber for this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.